Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan in the Documents of J. Carter Administration

The article examines the documents of Jimmy Carter Administration (1977-1981) published in «Foreign Relations of the United States» series that represent the U.S. position on the Soviet intervention in the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in December 1979. The author argues that the growing Soviet presence and finally a military intervention in Afghanistan was taken seriously in the United States and made Washington watch the developments in this country closely. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan became one of the major themes in the U.S. foreign policy. It was presented in a large array of documents of various origins, such as the Department of State correspondence with the U.S. Embassies in Afghanistan and the Soviet Union; analytical reports of the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and Bureau of Intelligence and Research; exchanges of memorandums between National Security Council officers and other officials; memos from National Security Adviser Z. Brzezinski to J. Carter, and others. They represented the preconditions, preparations and implementation of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The authors of the documents discussed in details the possible motives of the Soviet leaders, and predicted the short-term consequences of the USSR’s intervention for the region and the whole world. Due to the clear understanding of the developments in Afghanistan in December 1979 by the J. Carter administration, it completely rejected the Soviet official version of them that adversely affected the bilateral Soviet-U.S. relations and international relations in general. Due to the lack of accessible Soviet sources on the USSR’s intervention in Afghanistan, the documents of Jimmy Carter’s administration fill this gap and constitute a valuable source for a researcher.

US-Philippines Security Relations (1991–2016)

This paper describes and discusses the major developments in the U.S.-Philippines security relations in 1991-2016, between signing an agreement to extend a rent of Subic Bay Naval base by the U.S. and inauguration of R. Duterte administration. The research has revealed three periods in the U.S.-Philippines security relations in 1991-2016. The first period started when the Philippines senate rejected to ratify the Subic Bay Agreement in September 1991, and the United States had to evacuate the naval base on November 1992. It lasted until the U.S. and the Philippines signed a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in 1998. The Philippines government’s interest in reaching a new agreement was caused by China’s 1995 military occupation of the Panganiban reef and other incidents at the disputed territories in the South China Sea. The Philippines claimed that they composed a part of their exclusive economic zone, according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The second period lasted since ratification of the VFA by the Philippines parliament in 1999 until aggravation of the situation in the South China Sea in 2011. This period was featured by enhanced political and military cooperation between the U.S. and the Philippines, and significant U.S. assistance in modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). In September 2001–2006, the security cooperation was focused on the counterterrorism activitiesin the Philippines by military means. In 2007–2011, the focus shifted to humanitarian operations and development assistance. During the third period, in March 2011 – June 2016, B. Aquino administration refocused attention from domestic security issues to the threats in the South China Sea. In 2014, the Philippines and the U.S. signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which provided American ships, aircrafts and military personnel with an access to several military bases of the AFP on a rotating basis. The Agreement essentially improved U.S. strategic position in the Southeast Asia and the South China Sea.

American memory war of the protest movement «Black live matter»

Americans as a nation are more focused on the present and the future than on the past. Until recently, various «historical traumas» have not been the subject of current American political discourse. The American dream focuses on the needs of everyday life, not on the permanent experience of the past. The aim of the article is to highlight the peculiarities of symbolic conflicts over the sites of the Civil War in the United States in the context of the 2020 election campaign. Research methods are based on a combination of the principles of historicism and special historical methods, in particular, descriptive, comparative, method of actualization of historical memory. The scientific novelty of the obtained results is determined by the historical and political analysis of the “wars of memory” during the presidential election campaign in the United States in 2020. Radical political confrontation exacerbates the conflicts of collective memory. This process is not prevented by the postmodern state of collective consciousness, the virtualization of political processes, attempts to form a «theater society». The coronavirus pandemic has raised the issue of choosing a strategy for the development of the globalization process as harshly as possible. Current events break the link between the past and the present, which makes the future unpredictable. Developed liberal democracy is considered the «end of history». Multiculturalism has created different interpretations of US history. Conclusions. Trump’s victory deepened the rift between different visions of the history of the Civil War. The Democratic majority unites African Americans, Latinos, women with higher education, and left liberals. Attacks on the memorials of the heroes of the former Confederacy became symbols of the war of memory. The dominant trend is an increase in the democratic and electoral numbers of non-white Americans. The «classic» United States, dominated in all walks of life by white Americans with Anglo-Saxon Protestant identities and relevant historical ideas, is becoming history. The situation is becoming a political reality when white Americans become a minority. It is unlikely that such a «new minority» will abandon its own interpretation of any stage of US history, including the most acute. This means that wars of memory will become an organic element of political processes.

Edward Stettinius – Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of State

The article is devoted to one of the United States Secretaries of State, Edward Stettinius, a political figure who is well known and ambiguous in American society and less well known in Ukraine. The author first reports on E. Stettinius’ emergence as a financier and a person involved in American business, and emphasizes that the victories in the business have attracted the attention of political circles in Washington and the White House. It is stated that with the outbreak of World War II, the United States introduced a land-lease program, administered at the request of Washington by Edward Stettinius. Following his successful experience in conducting a land-lease, US President Franklin Roosevelt began to think of involving E. Stettinius in leadership positions at the State Department, which could not cope with his functions due to the challenges of wartime. In addition, F. Roosevelt’s «personal diplomacy» and distrust of «foggy bottom» workers contributed to the decline in the authority and importance of the State Department in shaping the country’s foreign policy. It was for this purpose – to streamline the activities of the State Department and to put things in order inside of the structure – F. Roosevelt appointed E. Stettinius to the post of Deputy Secretary of State, and after the next fourth victory in the presidential election, he replaced then Secretary of State Cordell Hull. It is emphasized that E. Stettinius «correctly» understood his place in the issues of forming the foreign policy of the country. He did not interfere with F. Roosevelt’s «personal diplomacy», but at the same time he was always close and put his ideas into practice (as an example, the creation of the UN). And while the president was shaping the course of the country, he, E. Stettinius, was shaping the course for reorganizing the State Department.

Establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany and the position of American politics and diplomacy

The article examines the problem of relations between the two leading states of the world in the interwar period: Germany, which withdrew from the First World War as a defeated country and after the establishment of the Nazi regime started preparing revenge, and the United States, proclaimed «isolationism» and, therefore, distanced themselves from European international political problems. The scientific novelty: the author points up primarily political «isolationism», while in the economic sphere the United States has played a leading role in the reconstruction and development of the afterwar Germany. Today, due to the difficult geopolitical situation in the world, caused by the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation, which are quite similar to the former Nazi regime, there is a chance to look at the events of the 1930s in the international arena in a somewhat new way. Regarding this, the author sets out an aim of the article to carry out a comprehensive analyze and give his own assessment of the position of American politicians on the establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany. The methodological basis of the study. In the study the author used a descriptive method to identify the essence and features of American-German relations in the 1920s and early 1930s, a comparative-historical method in analyzing the positions of President Roosevelt’s enciclement on German Chancellor A. Hitler’s policy in 1933, the principles of objectivity and systematization using only verified facts and their comprehensive assessment. This made it possible for the first time to draw attention to the position of the American leadership on the establishment of the Nazi regime and its role in international diplomacy on the eve of World War II in order to the current geopolitical situation connected with Russia’s aggressive actions. The Conclusions. Finally, the author asserts that President Roosevelt’s encirclement perceived the threat of a new world war from the German Nazis, but did not change the United States’ overall foreign policy toward Europe. The reason was that Franklin Delano Roosevelt chose a wrong strategy to avert new world conflict in the relationship with Berlin. At the same time, the author underlines the differences in the attitudes of American «isolationists» towards Germany and Japan, as well as the differences between Washington’s position on the political and non-political aspects of relations with Hitler’s regime. Therefore, the author points out that not all the American politicians perceived the Nazi «Third Reich» totally negatively. As a result, the United States chose the wrong strategy to deter Nazi Germany, which did not testify its effectiveness. That’s why, the article asserts that the current United States and the Western European countries need to anticipate their past mistakes in building of the strategy of relations with Russian Federation.

The US gun policy: domestic and external dimensions

The purpose of the article is to explore proliferation of firearms in the United States due to social problems (mass shootings) and public demand for increasing gun control. Primary challenges cover exploring the U.S. firearms history, which provides a key to understanding the causes of the current situation in this area; reviewing of Americans’ attitudes toward gun ownership; studying the U.S. foreign policy in the context of arms exports from Ukraine to the United States. Moreover, attention is paid to exploring the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Donald Trump’s decision on arms control and a comparative analysis of his gun policy with the policy of his predecessors. The methodological basis of the study includes a set of general and special research methods. Systematic approach is used to consider the U.S. gun policy as a complex system with the determinism of domestic and foreign policy levels. A significant role is played by descriptive-historical and chronological methods that allow to examine the evolution of the U.S. legal framework for firearms and small-arms control. The comparative method makes it possible to compare the approaches of George W. Bush’s, Barack Obama’s and Donald Trump’s administrations to the gun policy. The statistical method allows to consider the peculiarities of the U.S. exports of small arms and Ukraine’s exports of such type of weapons to the USA. The scientific novelty lies in one of the first attempts among Ukrainian authors to make a comprehensive analysis of the interdependence of internal and external aspects of firearms trafficking among the U.S. civilians. In this context, the paper examines the U.S.–Ukrainian relations. The study concludes that the U.S. gun traditions are the main stumbling block for tightening firearms legislation. On the gun issue, the U.S. domestic policy, which is heavily influenced by the NRA, determines the state’s foreign policy. At the same time, society is demanding reforms aimed at restricting the possession of firearms by the civilian population, which may increase the level of domestic security.

Perception of the Metropolia by the Canadian Political Elite in 1914–1915 (According to the Materials of the Protocols of the Debates of the Canadian Parliament)

In modern historical science, an integral component of scientific research is the component of the source base, which also applies to studies in world history. This article is devoted to the analysis of the protocols of the Canadian Parliament’s debates at the initial stage of World War I (1914–1915). The pages of the protocols of the Canadian Parliament’s describe the personal attitude of politicians to Metropolia, the public speeches of Canadian politicians in 1914–1915, the vision of representatives of political elites regarding the entry of the Canadian Confederation into the First World War. Notwithstanding the ideological diversity of Canadian politicians in the early twentieth century, who included both proponents of unity with Metropolia and opponents of the process, it is interesting that the entire political elite at the beginning of the Great War was consolidated in the matter of supporting the British Crown. Even former political opponents – R. Borden and W. Laurier – became ideological partners, who emphasized that Canada should support the British Empire at a difficult time. Importantly, French Canadian politicians, who were in part critical of British imperialism, also took a positive view of Britain. The main ideologue of the French Canadians at this time was considered A. Burassa, who supported Canada’s entry into the First World War. The main issues discussed at this time by parliamentarians were Canada’s military and material support for the armed conflict. Senators J. Bolduk, E. Smith, A. Lougheed, and P. Murphy actively called for the side of the Metropolia. In the article the author draws attention to the fact that politicians were negative about the military conflict itself. Canadian politicians consider German Empire to be the main culprit in the war, which violated Belgium’s sovereignty and started the war. As a result, the UK was forced to go to war, defending the neutrality of the Belgian state. According to most Canadian politicians, Canada’s main task was to support the British Empire.

Features of US Geostrategy in the Third World (50’s – First Half of the 60’s of the XX Сentury)

The main tendency of the postwar world order was the absence of direct military conflicts between major powers and the division of the world into two military-political blocs.These entities brought together countries that differed in ideology and socio-economic structure. In the context of this conflicting confrontation, third world countries have become the arena of mediated rivalry. The confrontation took place in order to increase the area of influence in developing countries by engaging them in some form of socio-economic and political system. The most striking similarity can be seen in the development of the divided nations of Korea, China, Vietnam, in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. In the event of such contradictions, it is possible not to claim the conflict between superpowers and third world countries, but about the involvement or intervention of major powers in internal or interstate conflicts. During the second half of the 1940s – early 1960s, the main task of US administrations was to create a «power ring» around the Soviet control area, to maintain its functioning and further strengthening it. Initially, its line ran in Europe, then in East Asia, and later expanded to the Middle East, with adequate security in the form of US military bases and military-political blocs. By pursuing a policy of containment and extending its line throughout the periphery of Eurasia, the United States was increasingly confronted with the effects of the collapse of the colonial empires and forced, in one form or another, to fill the vacuum of emerging power. At the same time, geopolitical considerations played a major role in this process. The first attempt at an integrated response to the needs of underdeveloped countries was President G. Truman’s Point Four programm, which provided them with technical assistance. In the 1950s, US geostrategic priorities changed: Europe retained its importance, but more attention was paid to Southeast Asia and the Middle East. During this period, the strengthening of US positions in the Gulf region – the most important strategic point in terms of both oil resources and geographical location – began.

Rogers Act 1924: establishment of a professional USA Foreign Service

The article is devoted to the analysis of the formation of the legal framework that made possible the existence and functioning of the US foreign service. The purpose of the article is to clarify the preface and the course of formation of the professional foreign service of the United States, which was reflected in the adoption of the Rogers Act. The methodological basis of the study. The study was based on the principle of historicism, which contributed to the consideration of the phenomenon under study in its development and made it possible to identify periods in the formation of a professional diplomatic service. The use of the problem-chronological method contributed to the preservation of the historical heredity and integrity of the picture; the application of the comparative method made it possible to identify significant changes that occurred after the adoption of Rogers’ Law, which was considered through the use of the method of analysis. A historiographical description of the main scientific works devoted to the research topic is given. Analyzed works A. Evans, T. Lay, I. Stewart etc., which became the basis for the study. The scientific novelty lies in the systematization of ideas about qualitative and quantitative changes in the diplomatic service after the adoption of the relevant law. The author concludes that before the adoption of the Rogers Act there was no control over the selection of diplomatic and consular staff and the negative consequences of such a decision were especially evident during the First World War. Therefore, the historical conditions in which America found itself at that time became a challenge for the continued existence of the consular and diplomatic services, and therefore the issue of restructuring and modernization of these services in the United States and its transfer to another, qualitatively new level. In general, the author emphasizes the change in the status of foreign service, which was introduced by relevant legislation, namely the Rogers Act, the need for which was caused by certain historical conditions of the American state and its place on the world stage. Prior to the enactment of the Diplomatic Service Act, there was virtually no control over the selection of diplomatic and consular personnel representing the United States on the world stage. After the First World War, it became clear that the diplomatic service needed to be restructured. That is why Rogers’ law was passed, which, in fact, was the first legislative attempt to resolve this issue.

Forming of US environmental policy: Ukrainian view

Review of monograph Tetiana Perga «US Environmental Policy. The Age of Forming» (in Ukrainian) (State Institution «Institute of World History of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine»)