Showing papers on "Expansionism published in 1982"

The hero of Lefkandi

Abstract: The large island of Euboea, which lies along the north coast of Attica and Boeotia, was little known archaeologically until recent years (FIG. 1). Nor, apart from its involvement in the Persian Wars, then as a victim of Athenian imperialism and later as a step in the expansionism of Philip of Macedon, does it play any prominent role in the accounts of ancient historians. Yet, they have left hints of its former greatness in an early period of which little was remembered. The island was known to have sent out the first colonies to Italy and Sicily in the eighth century BC and to have settled the region of North Greece, still known as Chalcidice, after the name of one of Euboea's main cities, Chalcis. They remembered something, too, of a war between Chalcis and Eretria, the other major city of the island, in which their respective allies took part, and it is this conflict which seems to have exhausted both sides and led to the eclipse of the island's pre-eminence.

Conflict and the superpowers in the Horn of Africa

Abstract: The current conflict in the Horn of Africa is in many respects both regional and global. It is regional in the sense that its major driving forces are embedded in the nature of the states within this region, although this observation looks like an understatement in view of the fact that these states were themselves created by external forces. The conflict has acquired a global dimension, on the other hand, because of the level of the involvement of external actors, particularly the two superpowers. What are the implications of superpower involvement? At the regional level, this conflict directly concerns four countries, namely Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia. One major characteristic of these countries is their possession of a certain proportion of the Somali people, something which .most African historians regard as an accident of history. At this particular level of the conflict, the main issues contested are the ideals of self-determination and territorial integrity. The internationalisation of this conflict has, however, transformed it into a platform of East-West competition, involving the US and the Soviet Union with their allies. In the global context, the conflict touches on the economic, ideological, military and strategic interests of the superpowers. Both the US and the Soviet Union define what takes place in the Horn of Africawithin the perimeters of what they view as their national interests. They have often expressed concern for what they term the 'security' of this region but have not clearly defined what constitutes security for this region. Their notions of security, which to the West imply an absence of communism and to the East liberation from capitalism, do not seem to take into consideration the concrete local situation and the real needs of the peoples of this region. Indeed, most western analysts view security in terms of armaments and force levels, associating any challenge to the status quo with 'Soviet expansionism'. They, however, ignore the significance of internal struggles and the nature of production and distribution of wealth in most Third World countries. Yet it is clear that the 1978-9 Iranian revolution had nothing to do with communism and took place in a country that had the best weapons in the Persian Gulf. Even a little earlier, the 1974 Ethiopian revolution had no connection with Moscow. It was a product of the Ethiopian social formation and the Soviet Union moved in only in 1976, two years after the overthrow of Emperor Haile Selassie. The lesson these two cases offer is that a serious analysis of security in any region has to take cognisance of internal struggles. Given the internal and external ramifications of the conflict in the Horn, one is tempted to ask: Can the local states resolve their differences without the

The Politics of Educational Theory

Abstract: In the transition to advanced capitalism, public schooling developed as the concrete counterpart and successor to the mythic legacy of the 19th century Western frontier. As the Western frontier lost its innocence to the logic of capitalist industrialization and expansionism, the public school became the new birthplace for unfettered social and economic opportunities. With state supported education, "a new ideology became the order of the day. The folklore of capitalism was revitalized, education became the new frontier."' The assumptions that fueled this mythic vision of schooling have exercised a powerful influence on traditional and liberal views of education. Schools were presumed neutral institutions that provided equal opportunities for all students to pursue social and economic mobility. As a result of this assumption, individual initiative and intellectual labor became the most important categories by which to analyze the success or failure of different groups of students who made the sojourn through American schools. Social stability and moral order, rather than domination and emancipation, became the central concerns for analyzing the relationship between schools and the wider society. The mythic vision of schooling was reinforced by the assumption that public education was the most important vehicle to promote economic growth and to ensure economic equality.2 Within the last few decades, the view of American education as the "new frontier" has come under increasing attack by a chorus of educational critics. Changing material and ideological conditions sparked such criticism and have helped sustain it. Dissatisfaction with the role and meaning of American education erupted strongly amidst the political events of the 1960s and early 1970s. In addition, the emerging objective contradictions of the last decade contributed to a crisis ideologically. Beliefs and values used to legitimate the dominant society began to lose their sustaining power, particularly in those social science disciplines that serve to butress what might be called American hegemonic ideologies. A number of social theorists turned away from functionalist and empiricist models of social inquiry and attempted to reconstruct alternative views of education by drawing on diverse continental philosophies such as symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, existentialism, and various forms of neo-Marxist thought.3 Against the landscape of developing crises in American education, which included severe financial cutbacks, shrinking job markets, and massive teacher layoffs, educational critics found

British foreign policy: constraints and opportunities

Abstract: The extent to which foreign policy can be personal is a nice point, perhaps a suitable subject for a Chatham House research paper. Certainly there are too many established channels and institutions, and too many factors beyond the control of any individual, to allow it to become anything approaching an exclusively personal domain-nor would I wish it to be so. The extent to which foreign policy in this country has traditionally been bipartisan is another restraint and a very welcome one. But equally I have no doubt that a Foreign Secretary must put his own personal stamp on the direction and emphasis of his country's actions and words in the outside world. Some of this is no doubt tinkering at the margins of the existing consensus but on the central issues it must be more than this. I should like to express here some of my own convictions and priorities. It is vital that any country should have the clearest possible idea of its interests and objectives and should construct a coherent policy based on them. Reactions to events piecemeal can never be enough, although the best-constructed foreign policy will be of no use if it cannot deal with and adapt to events as they happen. Our major objectives are, as they have long been, first to ensure the security of this country, its people and its dependent territories through a strong and harmonious Alliance, by determination to resist aggression and expansionism, and by a realistic and energetic approach to arms control; secondly, to promote Britain's prosperity through the encouragement of international economic cooperation, the securing of reliable supplies of raw materials at stable prices, and the stimulation of receptive markets for our own exports; thirdly, to work for international stability both as an end in itself and to provide the environment in which the two prime objectives of security and prosperity can best be pursued; and finally, to maintain and improve our reputation as a valuable friend and ally and a potentially dangerous antagonist. But there is, of course, much more to it than that. The cynical view of foreign policy as a narrow and bloodless calculation of national profit and loss is one which makes no sense for a country as deeply engaged in the outside world as Britain is, and one which I find alien. In a parliamentary democracy, foreign policy must be the outward projection of the values and aspirations of the nation as a whole. The British have a generally well-founded suspicion of pious abstractions in foreign policy; they like to think of their own policy as pragmatic. And so it is, but only up to a point; the currents of pragmatism run between firm banks of strongly held belief and deeply ingrained sentiment. Our foreign policy has to reflect our commitment to liberties personal, political and economic. It must reflect old friendships and affinities of culture, language and religion.

American Catholic Expansionism: 1886–1894

Abstract: Durant ces annees, les champions de l'Americanisme, John Ireland, John Keane, D. O'Connell, James Gibbons, apprennent de Monsignor Eugene Boeglin, redacteur en chef du Moniteur de Rome, journal semi-officiel du Vatican, a se servir de la presse catholique internationale pour influencer les decisions de Rome sur des points specifiques, allant dans le sens liberal, socialement, qu'ils defendaient.

« De Carter à Reagan : La politique salvadorienne des États-Unis »

Abstract: Ever since Monroe's doctrine and up to President Carter, the American foreign policy in Latin America has been remarkably continuous both from the point of view of objectives - the maintenance and extension of American influence and domination - and that of the pressures required to attain them - from direct military intervention to economic sanctions, including clandestine activities of destabilization. Carter came to power and from then on that policy rested on different principles which became expressed, particularly in the case of El Salvador, in pressures for the respect of human rights, a temporary suspension of aid from the Interamerican Development Bank and in the immediate recognition of the regime which followed the coup d'Etat of october 1979 and which made possible a third option between a reactionary dictatorship and a takeover by the Marxists. The principles were once again altered under President Reagan for whom the fight against communism and international terrorism is a priority. Latin America acquired a new strategic importance and El Salvador became the scene of the East-West conflict, the symbol of American determination to contain Soviet expansionism. But Reagan's policy in El Salvador had to be restrained confronted as it was by opposition both internal, from the public, and external through the stand taken by the Allies. In spite of starting doctrinal differences, Carter's and Reagan's policies in El Salvador are very similar, both showing incoherence and inefficiency. They are heirs to a situation and an intellectual tradition which they perpetuate, one clumsily, the other cheerfully. But the failure of the Reagan administration is even more patent than that of its predecessor. The United States have only one alternative left, military intervention or negotiations with the guerilla, and furthermore they risk "losing" El Salvador the Vietnam or the Nicaragua way.

From Modernisation to Global Growth: New Directions in the Bourgeois Liberal Tradition

Abstract: Early interest in the development of the underdeveloped areas had been a mixture of humanitarianism, ethnocentrism and economic expansionism. Economic development of the Third World was seen as both beneficial to the Third World and good for capitalist business. Modernisation theories merely provided the appropriate theoretical underpinning for comprehensive social and economic planning.