scholarly journals “We Are from Biafra”. Igbo Students in the USSR during the Civil War in Nigeria, 1967-1970

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 822-834
Author(s):  
Sergey V. Mazov
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Central Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Conflict ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Christian Community ◽  
Soviet Leadership ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
Archival Documents

Drawing on the Russian archival documents the article examines the Soviet policy towards Igbo students who studied in the USSR during the civil war in Nigeria (1967-1970). They sided the self-proclaimed Republic of Biafra, Eastern Nigeria, seceded from Nigeria in May 1967. The USSR supported the territorial integrity of Nigeria, provided military and other assistance for the Federal Government in its confrontation with Biafra. However, the Soviet authorities took neutrality in the conflict between Nigerian Embassy in Moscow and Igbo students. They did not expel students at the requests of the Embassy as accomplices of the separatists investigating each case carefully, did not hinder the activity of the Biafrian fellowship. Since the dissemination of Biafrian propagandists production was banned in the USSR, they tried to reach the Soviet audience through appeals from Igbo students who studied in the USSR. The appeals did not include the main issues of Biafrian propaganda to the West: accusations of the Federal Government of the Igbo genocide by Nazi methods and the portrayal of the civil war as a religious conflict - a jihad of the Muslim North against the Igbo as the largest and most organized Christian community in Nigeria. The dominant thesis was about the nature of the civil war as a struggle of the socialist East, Biafra, against the feudal-capitalist North, the central government. The students appealed the Soviet officials to recognize publicly the legitimacy of the Biafrians aspirations for self-determination, to stop supplying arms to the Federal Government and to mediate in a peaceful settlement. There were no responses to the appeals, and they were not made public. Based on archival documents, the author established that the Soviet leadership reasonably feared that Biafra would become the fiefdom of the main geopolitical rivals - the United States and Great Britain. To prevent this USSR entered into an alliance with the federals. The calculation was to enhance the Soviet influence throughout Nigeria, albeit with a reactionary government, rather than support the progressive breakaway Eastern Nigeria (Biafra) and receive nothing.

How the Great Lakes Became "High Seas," and their Status Viewed from the Standpoint of International Law

1910 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-313
Author(s):  
Harry E. Hunt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Great Increase ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
High Seas

The convention which met in 1787 to frame the Constitution of the United States, embraced two earnest and determined bodies of men. One favored a strong central government; the other opposed any great increase of power over that granted by the Articles of Confederation. With what jealousy the states guarded their rights and with what reluctance they made surrenders to the federal government is common knowledge. The Constitution, as adopted, was a compromise between the factions, and that part relative to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction was the second great compromise between conflicting depositories of power.

Perfecting the Union

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max M. Edling
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Central Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
American States ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The One ◽  
And Control

Habitually interpreted as the fundamental law of the American republic, the US Constitution was in fact designed as an instrument of union between thirteen American republics and as a form of government for their common central government. It offered an organizational solution to the security concerns of the newly independent American states. Confederation was an established means for weak states to maintain their independence by joining in union to manage relations with the outside world from a position of strength. Confederation also transformed the immediate international environment by turning neighboring states from potential enemies into sister states in a common union or peace pact. The US Constitution profoundly altered the structure of the American union and made the federal government more effective than under the defunct Articles of Confederation. But it did not transform the fundamental purpose of the federal union, which remained the management of relations between the American states, on the one hand, and between the American states and foreign powers, on the other. As had been the case under the articles, the states regulated the social, economic, and civic life of their citizens and inhabitants with only limited supervision and control from the federal government. This book demonstrates that interpreting the Constitution as an instrument of union has important implications for the understanding of the American founding. The Constitution mattered much more to the international than to the domestic history of the United States. Its importance to the latter was dwarfed by that of state constitutions and legislation.

International ground force unlikely in Syria

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Central Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Intervention

Significance While intensified air attacks will help weaken and contain ISG, they will not destroy it unless accompanied by a substantial ground force to defeat ISG on the ground. However, the lack of workable military solutions to the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts, and the legacy of the Afghanistan and Iraq interventions mean that the United States and other allies are averse to carrying out a large-scale ground deployment. Impacts Without robust international intervention, Syria's civil war will drag on for years, enabling ISG to hold onto significant territory. A large-scale US ground force operation would risk enflaming anti-US sentiment and escalating the geopolitical rivalry with Iran and Russia. Proxy forces and militia groups will embed themselves in Syrian and Iraqi politics, weakening central government. Threat of attacks by ISG- and al-Qaida-linked jihadists in the West will increase. Russia and Iran's much greater military role in Syria compared to the West will give them a much greater say on the conflict's outcome.

scholarly journals How does secessionism end? No-win scenarios for contemporary American secessionist movements

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-55
Author(s):  
Martin Pomarański
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Organizational Change ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
21St Century ◽  
The United States ◽  
Significant Part ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Harsh Conditions ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Secessionist Movement

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to attempt to characterize the American secessionist movement in the 21st century. In spite of the fact that all ideas of self-determination in the U.S. are not welcomed by the federal government in Washington and as a consequence are dying on the vine, they have still reborn in subsequent separatist and secessionist initiatives. An analysis of the goals, sizes and motivations of contemporary secessionist groups in the United States will lead to the main goal of the paper, which is to answer the question about the types of strategies chosen by American secessionists in the situation of the obvious failure of their overarching political goal - independence. As it turns out, a significant part of such groups in a situation of collision of their own political dreams with the harsh conditions of American Realpolitik does not give up and continues their activities in a slightly modified form. Understanding the scenarios accompanying this ideological and organizational change, as well as exemplifying the groups that have decided to implement these scenarios in recent years will be the crucial goal of the paper.

A New Government Must Be Made

2019 ◽  
pp. 126-153
Author(s):  
Jeff Broadwater
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Central Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Paper Money ◽  
Balance Of Trade ◽  
Republican Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Postponement

In the year leading up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Jefferson, now serving as American minister to France, grew increasingly frustrated with Congress’s inability to retaliate against nations that discriminated against U.S. trade. Madison believed an unfavorable balance of trade drained specie out of the United States and created a demand for debt relief, paper money, and the postponement of tax collections, which left the states unable to support Congress financially. Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts reaffirmed his view that the preservation of republican government required a much stronger central government. At the Philadelphia convention, Madison supported giving Congress broad powers, including the right to veto state laws, and he proposed that representation in Congress be based on population. His fellow delegates rejected the so-called congressional negative, and small state delegates forced Madison to accept the Great, or Connecticut, Compromise in which in the House of Representatives would reflect a state’s population, but each state would have an equal vote in the Senate. When the convention adjourned, Madison feared the new federal government might still be too weak to survive, while Jefferson, viewing events from Paris, worried the Constitution did too little to protect the people’s liberties.

The Role of the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Korean War

2018 ◽  
pp. 97-130
Author(s):  
Denzenlkham Ulambayar
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Korean War ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
History Of

Since the 1990s, when previously classified and top secret Russian archival documents on the Korean War became open and accessible, it has become clear for post-communist countries that Kim Il Sung, Stalin and Mao Zedong were the primary organizers of the war. It is now equally certain that tensions arising from Soviet and American struggle generated the origins of the Korean War, namely the Soviet Union’s occupation of the northern half of the Korean peninsula and the United States’ occupation of the southern half to the 38th parallel after 1945 as well as the emerging bipolar world order of international relations and Cold War. Newly available Russian archival documents produced much in the way of new energies and opportunities for international study and research into the Korean War.2 However, within this research few documents connected to Mongolia have so far been found, and little specific research has yet been done regarding why and how Mongolia participated in the Korean War. At the same time, it is becoming today more evident that both Soviet guidance and U.S. information reports (evaluated and unevaluated) regarding Mongolia were far different from the situation and developments of that period. New examples of this tendency are documents declassified in the early 2000s and released publicly from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in December 2016 which contain inaccurate information. The original, uncorrupted sources about why, how and to what degree the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) became a participant in the Korean War are in fact in documents held within the Mongolian Central Archives of Foreign Affairs. These archives contain multiple documents in relation to North Korea. Prior to the 1990s Mongolian scholars Dr. B. Lkhamsuren,3 Dr. B. Ligden,4 Dr. Sh. Sandag,5 junior scholar J. Sukhee,6 and A. A. Osipov7 mention briefly in their writings the history of relations between the MPR and the DPRK during the Korean War. Since the 1990s the Korean War has also briefly been touched upon in the writings of B. Lkhamsuren,8 D. Ulambayar (the author of this paper),9 Ts. Batbayar,10 J. Battur,11 K. Demberel,12 Balảzs Szalontai,13 Sergey Radchenko14 and Li Narangoa.15 There have also been significant collections of documents about the two countries and a collection of memoirs published in 200716 and 2008.17 The author intends within this paper to discuss particularly about why, how and to what degree Mongolia participated in the Korean War, the rumors and realities of the war and its consequences for the MPR’s membership in the United Nations. The MPR was the second socialist country following the Soviet Union (the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) to recognize the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and establish diplomatic ties. That was part of the initial stage of socialist system formation comprising the Soviet Union, nations in Eastern Europe, the MPR, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the DPRK. Accordingly between the MPR and the DPRK fraternal friendship and a framework of cooperation based on the principles of proletarian and socialist internationalism had been developed.18 In light of and as part of this framework, The Korean War has left its deep traces in the history of the MPR’s external diplomatic environment and state sovereignty

“The Greatest Nation on Earth”

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K.M. Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Manifest Destiny ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northern Mexico ◽  
Texas Revolution

Between 1820 and 1827 approximately 1,800 U.S. citizens immigrated to northern Mexico as part of that country’s empresario program, in which the federal government granted foreigners land if they promised to develop and secure the region. Historians have long argued that these settlers, traditionally seen as the vanguard of Manifest Destiny, were attracted to Mexico for its cheap land and rich natural resources. Such interpretations have lent a tone of inevitability to events like the Texas Revolution. This article argues that the early members of these groups were attracted to Mexico for chiefly political reasons. At a time when the United States appeared to be turning away from its commitment to a weak federal government, Mexico was establishing itself on a constitution that insured local sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, the Texas Revolution was far from the result of two irreconcilable peoples and cultures. Moreover, the role that these settlers played in the United States’ acquisition of not just Texas, but ultimately half of Mexico’s national territory, was more paradoxical than inevitable.

Presidents and the Dissolution of the Union

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred I. Greenstein ◽  
Dale Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Organizational Capacity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Abraham Lincoln ◽  
George Washington ◽  
Personal Strengths ◽  
History Of ◽  
Civil War Era ◽  
American Leader ◽  
Policy Vision

The United States witnessed an unprecedented failure of its political system in the mid-nineteenth century, resulting in a disastrous civil war that claimed the lives of an estimated 750,000 Americans. This book assesses the personal strengths and weaknesses of presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama. The book evaluates the leadership styles of the Civil War-era presidents. The book looks at the presidential qualities of James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Abraham Lincoln. For each president, the book provides a concise history of the man's life and presidency, and evaluates him in the areas of public communication, organizational capacity, political skill, policy vision, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence. The book sheds light on why Buchanan is justly ranked as perhaps the worst president in the nation's history, how Pierce helped set the stage for the collapse of the Union and the bloodiest war America had ever experienced, and why Lincoln is still considered the consummate American leader to this day. The book reveals what enabled some of these presidents, like Lincoln and Polk, to meet the challenges of their times—and what caused others to fail.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document