A War or a Nation?

Author(s):  
James W. Pardew

Touch-and-go diplomacy by senior European officials fails to halt the momentum toward a civil war in Macedonia after Albanian insurgents use force to demand increased rights and power for their people. With limited capacity to deal with an insurgency, the Macedonians can have a war or a unified nation, not both. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell designate Pardew as the US envoy to work with EU envoy Francois Leotard of France to assist President Trajkovski in finding a peaceful solution to the looming war in Macedonia.

Author(s):  
Joseph A. Fry

As the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln and Secretary of State William Henry Seward formed a most unlikely, but exceedingly successful foreign policy partnership. While functioning as the senior partner, Lincoln instituted a one-war policy as the cornerstone of US diplomacy, brilliantly articulated the international importance of preserving the nation’s republican experiment, linked freeing the slaves to the Union’s survival, and oversaw the North’s military efforts. By threatening war with any nation that intervened in the American conflict, Seward practiced a purposeful brinkmanship that was essential to precluding potentially decisive European aid to the Confederacy. The secretary of state combined these ongoing threats with timely compromises at crucial junctures, such as the Trent affair; joined Lincoln in the skillful use of public diplomacy aimed at both domestic and foreign audiences; and adeptly responded to Napoleon III’s intervention in Mexico. The US victory advanced the cause of republicanism and nationalism in the western world; it also enabled the United States to resume its imperial growth toward great power status. Seward played a formative role in that imperial growth. Following Lincoln’s assassination, he remained secretary of state during the Andrew Johnson administration. Over those four years, Seward purchased Alaska and outlined an elaborate agenda for US commercial and territorial expansion, an agenda that forecast with remarkable specificity US actions at the turn of the twentieth century.


1984 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-52
Author(s):  
Mahmud A. Faksh

I.Since the end of World War 11, approximately eighty new states havebeen established. Only two, Pakistan and Cyprus, have undergone theagony of dismemberment when Bangladesh broke off in 1973 and theTurkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was declared in 1983. The worldmay now be witnessing the possible breakup of yet a third state:Lebanon, whose disintegration has been accelerated since the June 1982Israeli invasion.Shortly after the invasion began, Henry Kissinger assessed itsconsequence for Lebanon’s future, concluding, “It is neither desirablenor possible to return to the status quo ante in Lebanon.” One possibleoutcome was that some Syrian and Israeli forces would remain in thenorthern and southern ends, respectively, and the central government’sauthority would ostensibly cover the rest of the country. Implicit in theKissinger diagnosis is the possibility of eventual partition.Though the gloomy assessment by the “wizard” of US. foreign policyshould by no means be construed as a portent of an official shift awayfrom the publicly stated US. support of “Lebanon’s sovereignty andterritorial integrity,” a shadow was cast on the country’s prospects.Subsequent developments have seemed to indicate that Lebanon’sdemise looms larger than at any time since the beginning of the civil warin 1975-76.For over a year and a half national fragmentation has proceededinexorably. What many people once could imagine only with difficulty,they now acknowledge: in reality, Lebanon is facing possible death. TheSouth (35 percent of the land area) is occupied by Israel; the North andthe Biqa’ (45 percent) are controlled by Syria; Kasrawan (15 percent) iscontrolled by the Christian Maronite forces (the Lebanese Front forces),which are not subject to the government’s authority. The rest of thecountry-beleaguered Beirut and environs-was until the February1984 breakdown under the government’s shaky control supported bysymbolic US., French, Italian, and British units. The Multi-NationalForce (MNF) was subject to increasing attacks by Muslim leftist factions,as witnessed in the October 23 bombing of the quarters of U.S.Marines and French troops. Thus, instead of keeping peace, the MNFbecame ,a partisan force trying to protect itself. The US. and Frenchforces in particular seemed to have outlived their usefulness as“peacekeepers.” Recurrent fighting in southern Beirut and in theadjacent Chouf mountains, that pitted Christian Maronites and armyunits against Shi‘ite and Druse Muslims constantly threatened theexistence of President Amin Gemayel’s government and consequently arenewal of the civil war. This situation culminated in February 1984 inthe resignation of the Shafiq al-Wazzan’s cabinet, the loss ofgovernment’s control of West Beirut to Muslim-leftist militias, and theimminent collapse of Amin Gemayel’s presidency ...


Author(s):  
Hannah Rosen

The rapid transformations brought on by the US Civil War and its aftermath touched women’s lives in contradictory ways. The disruption caused by war and the destruction of slavery opened up space, and at times created the necessity, for radically new roles for women that challenged antebellum gender norms and racial and class hierarchies. This essay examines the wartime and postwar experiences primarily of black and white but also Native American women. In this period, many women faced new circumstances that inspired them to confront power in novel ways—by, for instance, fleeing slavery, petitioning governors, organizing bread riots, participating in political parades, or protesting segregation. The chapter also explores political violence in the postwar period that affected women differently across class, race, and region and that eventually helped to shut down the radical potential of the era.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002190962110624
Author(s):  
Dana Ali Salih ◽  
Hawre Hasan Hama

The Kurdish Civil War between the military forces of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) began in 1994. Despite frequently occurring peace talks throughout the conflict, negotiations failed to bring about a durable settlement until the United States brokered the Washington Peace Agreement in 1998. This research explores why the earlier negotiations were unsuccessful, and whether it was only the US mediation in 1998 which made the difference. Although the US mediation was clearly an important factor, by employing the contingency model this research argues that both contextual variables and process variables determined the success of negotiations in 1998. Furthermore, they can explain the failure of the previous 4 years of negotiations.


1976 ◽  
Vol 6 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 16-26
Author(s):  
George M. Houser

In the early 1950s when the American Committee on Africa was formed, American interest in and knowledge about Africa was something of a joke. There was a Tarzan mentality in the US about the continent. Few books about Africa were known even by the reading public. Gunther’s Inside Africa, when it came out in 1956, served as a reference book for years for those Americans who wanted to get a perspective on the continent. I remember listening to Chester Bowles, who served as under secretary of state briefly in the Kennedy administration, speak about his own attempt to find relevant material about Africa in a Connecticut town. He told about his visit to the town public library, where he culled through the card catalogue. To find books on the Congo he said he had to search under “B” for “Belgium.” In searching for material on Ghana (then the Gold Coast) or Nigeria, he had to look under “Great Britain.” He found books about Liberia and Ethiopia under “Miscellaneous.” Knowledge of Africa was minimal, and the continent was on the whole looked upon as an extension of Europe.


Author(s):  
A. Borisova

The last five years defined an alternative course in the US foreign policy. Obama's reelection caused staff transfers which notably influenced the course. This comprehensive process is based on tremendous work conducted by the Administration of Barak Obama, in particular by John Kerry, who was appointed as a Secretary of State in 2013. His personality plays a significant role in American domestic and foreign policy interrelation. Adoption or rejection of the bills, which are well-known today, depended in large on a range of circumstances, such as personality, life journey and political leader career of the today's Secretary of State. John Kerry’s professional life is mainly associated with domestic policy; nevertheless, he has always been interested in foreign relations and national security issues. Those concerns generally included: non-proliferation, US security, ecological problems, fight against terrorism. The article is intended to highlight Kerry’s efforts in each of these fields, showing not only his actions, but also difficult process of adoption or banning bills in the USA. The author tried to display the whole complicated decision-making process among different parties, businessmen and politicians, law and money clashes. The results of many former endeavors can be seen today, in the modern US policy. Based on assumptions about Secretary of State’s beliefs, certain road map can be predicted. In conclusion, the article offers several courses, where the United States are likely to be most active during the next few years. It can be judged exactly which way some current political issues will develop, how the US foreign policy will be shaped by today's decision-makers in the White House.


2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (44) ◽  
pp. 11215-11220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dora L. Costa ◽  
Noelle Yetter ◽  
Heather DeSomer

We study whether paternal trauma is transmitted to the children of survivors of Confederate prisoner of war (POW) camps during the US Civil War (1861–1865) to affect their longevity at older ages, the mechanisms behind this transmission, and the reversibility of this transmission. We examine children born after the war who survived to age 45, comparing children whose fathers were non-POW veterans and ex-POWs imprisoned in very different camp conditions. We also compare children born before and after the war within the same family by paternal ex-POW status. The sons of ex-POWs imprisoned when camp conditions were at their worst were 1.11 times more likely to die than the sons of non-POWs and 1.09 times more likely to die than the sons of ex-POWs when camp conditions were better. Paternal ex-POW status had no impact on daughters. Among sons born in the fourth quarter, when maternal in utero nutrition was adequate, there was no impact of paternal ex-POW status. In contrast, among sons born in the second quarter, when maternal nutrition was inadequate, the sons of ex-POWs who experienced severe hardship were 1.2 times more likely to die than the sons of non-POWs and ex-POWs who fared better in captivity. Socioeconomic effects, family structure, father-specific survival traits, and maternal effects, including quality of paternal marriages, cannot explain our findings. While we cannot rule out fully psychological or cultural effects, our findings are most consistent with an epigenetic explanation.


Perceptions ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Julius Nathan Fortaleza Klinger

The purpose of this paper is to explore the question of whether or not early nineteenth-century lawmakers saw the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as a true solution to the question of slavery in the United States, or if it was simply a stopgap solution. The information used to conduct this research paper comes in the form of a collation of primary and secondary sources. My findings indicate that the debate over Missouri's statehood was in fact about slavery in the US, and that the underlying causes of the Civil War were already quite prevalent four whole decades before the conflict broke out.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document