O Prof. Wayne Selcher, brasilianista e professor emérito de Estudos Internacionais do Elizabethtown College, nos Estados Unidos, informa a atualização do projeto de divulgação científica Biblioteca Virtual sobre os Assuntos Internacionais, recém reformatada, parte do sistema mundial de Bibliotecas Virtuais WWW. Este website amplo contem mais de 2000 links anotados, criteriosamente selecionados, e atualizados com frequência, em 35 áreas dos assuntos internacionais. Reconhecido por muitas entidades acadêmicas principais, atuantes em Internet, destina-se ao uso pelos pesquisadores, jornalistas, empresários, diplomatas, professores, e universitários, entre outros. O website se situa entre os 5 ou 10 mais referidos em Google, e outros buscadores principais, com os têrmos “international affairs,” “international studies,” e “international relations,” entre outros da área.
A WWW Virtual Library: International Affairs Resources se acessa aqui. |
Mostrando postagens com marcador International Relations. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador International Relations. Mostrar todas as postagens
segunda-feira, 27 de agosto de 2012
International Affairs Resources - Wayne Selcher
Eu já tinha postado aqui, muito tempo atrás, a mesma informação, do meu amigo Wayne Selcher, que já deu aulas na UnB. Agora Mundorama renova a postagem, o que me dá prazer de retransmitir:
(http://www2.etown.edu/vl/)
quinta-feira, 12 de janeiro de 2012
International Relations: The Great Debates: reading selection book
O preço é salgadíssimo, mas o livro é ideal para bibliotecas diplomáticas
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
International Relations: The Great Debates
Rainer Baumann , Peter Mayer , Bernhard Zangl
Edited by Rainer Baumann, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Peter Mayer, Professor of International Relations, Universität Bremen, Germany and Bernhard Zangl, Professor of Global Governance and Public Policy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany
December 2011 2,312 pp Hardback
Price $1138.50
Series: Elgar Mini Series
Description
The history of international relations has been shaped by a sequence of ‘Great Debates’, in which leading scholars of the field advanced, challenged, and defended views about the assumptions that should inform the study of world politics. In this authoritative collection, the editors bring together for the first time the most important contributions to these inspiring intellectual exchanges and provide an excellent overview of the discipline’s development since its inception in the early 20th century. Students and scholars in international relations as well as neighboring disciplines will find these volumes to be an indispensable and highly informative source of reference.
Contents
86 articles, dating from 1910 to 2006 Contributors include: H. Bull, R.W. Cox, R.O. Keohane, S.D. Krasner, T. Pogge, J.G. Ruggie, I. Wallerstein, K.N. Waltz, M. Walzer, A. Wendt
The history of international relations has been shaped by a sequence of ‘Great Debates’, in which leading scholars of the field advanced, challenged, and defended views about the assumptions that should inform the study of world politics. In this authoritative collection, the editors bring together for the first time the most important contributions to these inspiring intellectual exchanges and provide an excellent overview of the discipline’s development since its inception in the early 20th century. Students and scholars in international relations as well as neighboring disciplines will find these volumes to be an indispensable and highly informative source of reference.
Full table of contents
Contents:
Volume I: Substantive Debates
Acknowledgements
Introduction Rainer Baumann, Peter Mayer and Bernhard Zangl
PART I SUBSTANTIVE DEBATES
A. First Debate: Realism vs. Idealism
1. Norman Angell (1910), ‘Outline of the Psychological Case for Peace’ and ‘Unchanging Human Nature’
2. Edward Hallett Carr ([1939] 1940), ‘The Beginnings of a Science’ and ‘Utopia and Reality’
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
International Relations: The Great Debates
Rainer Baumann , Peter Mayer , Bernhard Zangl
Edited by Rainer Baumann, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Peter Mayer, Professor of International Relations, Universität Bremen, Germany and Bernhard Zangl, Professor of Global Governance and Public Policy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany
December 2011 2,312 pp Hardback
Price $1138.50
Series: Elgar Mini Series
Description
The history of international relations has been shaped by a sequence of ‘Great Debates’, in which leading scholars of the field advanced, challenged, and defended views about the assumptions that should inform the study of world politics. In this authoritative collection, the editors bring together for the first time the most important contributions to these inspiring intellectual exchanges and provide an excellent overview of the discipline’s development since its inception in the early 20th century. Students and scholars in international relations as well as neighboring disciplines will find these volumes to be an indispensable and highly informative source of reference.
Contents
86 articles, dating from 1910 to 2006 Contributors include: H. Bull, R.W. Cox, R.O. Keohane, S.D. Krasner, T. Pogge, J.G. Ruggie, I. Wallerstein, K.N. Waltz, M. Walzer, A. Wendt
The history of international relations has been shaped by a sequence of ‘Great Debates’, in which leading scholars of the field advanced, challenged, and defended views about the assumptions that should inform the study of world politics. In this authoritative collection, the editors bring together for the first time the most important contributions to these inspiring intellectual exchanges and provide an excellent overview of the discipline’s development since its inception in the early 20th century. Students and scholars in international relations as well as neighboring disciplines will find these volumes to be an indispensable and highly informative source of reference.
Full table of contents
Contents:
Volume I: Substantive Debates
Acknowledgements
Introduction Rainer Baumann, Peter Mayer and Bernhard Zangl
PART I SUBSTANTIVE DEBATES
A. First Debate: Realism vs. Idealism
1. Norman Angell (1910), ‘Outline of the Psychological Case for Peace’ and ‘Unchanging Human Nature’
2. Edward Hallett Carr ([1939] 1940), ‘The Beginnings of a Science’ and ‘Utopia and Reality’
3. Leonard Woolf (1940), ‘Utopia and Reality’
4. John H. Herz (1950), ‘Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma’
5. Hans J. Morgenthau (1954) [1985], ‘A Realist Theory of International Politics’ B. The Inter-paradigm Debate: Realism vs. Pluralism vs. Globalism 6. Graham T. Allison (1969), ‘Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis’ 7. Robert Gilpin (1971), ‘The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations’
8. Immanuel Wallerstein (1974), ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis’
9. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye (1977), ‘Interdependence in World Politics’ and ‘Realism and Complex Interdependence
10. Michael W. Doyle (1983), ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’
11. Kenneth N. Waltz (1990), ‘Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory’
C. Neo-Neo Debate: Neorealism vs. Neoliberalism 12. Robert Axelrod and Robert O. Keohane (1985), ‘Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions’ 13. Robert D. Putnam (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’ 14. Joseph M. Grieco (1988), ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’ 15. Duncan Snidal (1991), ‘Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation’ 16. Stephen D. Krasner (1991), ‘Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier’ 17. John J. Mearsheimer (1994/1995), ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’ 18. Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin (1995), ‘The Promise of Intuitionalist Theory’ 19. Andrew Moravcsik (1997), ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’ D. Statism vs. Global Governance 20. James N. Rosenau (1995), ‘Governance in the Twenty-first Century’ 21. Jessica T. Mathews (1997), ‘Power Shift’ 22. Anne-Marie Slaughter (1997), ‘The Real New World Order’ 23. Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1998), ‘Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics: Introduction’ 24. Stephen D. Krasner (2001), ‘Abiding Sovereignty’ 25. A. Claire Cutler (2002), ‘Private International Regimes and Interfirm Cooperation’ Volume II: Epistemological and Ontological Debates Acknowledgements An introduction to all three volumes by the editors appears in Volume I PART I EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEBATES A. Traditionalism vs. Science 1. Morton A. Kaplan (1966), ‘The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations’ 2. Raymond Aron (1967), ‘What Is a Theory of International Relations?’ 3. Hedley Bull (1969), ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’ 4. J. David Singer (1969), ‘The Incompleat Theorist: Insight Without Evidence’ B. Third Debate: Positivism vs. Post-Positivism 5. Robert W. Cox (1986), ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’ 6. Richard K. Ashley (1988), ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’ 7. J. Ann Tickner (1988), ‘Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation’ 8. Mark Neufeld (1993), ‘Interpretation and the “Science” of International Relations’ 9. John Lewis Gaddis (1996), ‘History, Science, and the Study of International Relations’ 10. Michael Nicholson (1996), ‘The Continued Significance of Positivism?’ 11. Mervyn Frost (1998), ‘A Turn not Taken: Ethics in IR at the Millennium’ 12. Alexander Wendt (1999), ‘Scientific Realism and Social Kinds’ PART II ONTOLOGICAL DEBATES A. The Agent-Structure Debate 13. J. David Singer (1961), ‘The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations’ 14. Alexander E. Wendt (1987), ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’ 15. Walter Carlsnaes (1992), ‘The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis’ 16. Martin Hollis and Steve Smith (1994), ‘Two Stories about Structure and Agency’ 17. Roxanne Lynn Doty (1997), ‘Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory’ 18. Colin Wight (1999), ‘They Shoot Dead Horses Don’t They? Locating Agency in the Agent-Structure Problematique’ B. Rationalism vs. Constructivism 19. John Gerard Ruggie (1983), ‘Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis’ 20. Duncan Snidal (1985), ‘The Game Theory of International Politics’ 21. Friedrich Kratochwil and John Gerard Ruggie (1986), ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’ 22. Robert O. Keohane (1988), ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’ 23. Alexander Wendt (1992), ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’ 24. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink (1998), ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’ 25. James G. March and Johan P. Olsen (1998), ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders’ 26. Thomas Risse (2000), ‘”Let’s Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics’ 27. Friedrich Kratochwil (2000), ‘Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s “Social Theory of International Politics” and the Constructivist Challenge’ 28. James Fearon and Alexander Wendt (2002), ‘Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View’ Volume III: Normative Debates Acknowledgements An introduction to all three volumes by the editors appears in Volume I PART I NORMATIVE DEBATES A. Competing Perspectives on International Ethics: Moral Skepticism vs. Communitarianism vs. Cosmopolitanism 1. Charles R. Beitz (1983), ‘Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment’ 2. Marshall Cohen (1984), ‘Moral Skepticism and International Relations’ 3. George F. Kennan (1985), ‘Morality and Foreign Policy’ 4. David Miller (1988), ‘The Ethical Significance of Nationality’ 5. Robert E. Goodin (1988), ‘What Is So Special about Our Fellow Countrymen?’ 6. Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz (1990), ‘National Self-Determination’ 7. Thomas W. Pogge (1992), ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty’ B. Human Rights 8. The Executive Board, American Anthropological Association (1947), ‘Statement on Human Rights’ 9. Henry Shue ([1980] 1996), ‘Security and Subsistence’ 10. Alan Gewirth (1981), ‘The Basis and Content of Human Rights’ 11. Maurice Cranston (1983), ‘Are There Any Human Rights?’ 12. Richard Rorty (1993), ‘Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality’ 13. Susan Moller Okin (1998), ‘Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences’ 14. Peter Jones (1999), ‘Group Rights and Group Oppression’ 15. Joshua Cohen (2004), ‘Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For?’ C. Coercion, Deterrence, and the Use of Force 16. Thomas Nagel (1972), ‘War and Massacre’ 17. Gregory S. Kavka (1978), ‘Some Paradoxes of Deterrence’ 18. David Luban (1980), ‘Just War and Human Rights’ 19. Michael Walzer (1980), ‘The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics’ 20. Gerald Dworkin (1985), ‘Nuclear Intentions’ 21. Joy Gordon (1999), ‘A Peaceful, Silent, Deadly Remedy: The Ethics of Economic Sanctions’ 22. George A. Lopez (1999), ‘More Ethical than Not: Sanctions as Surgical Tools: Response to a “Peaceful, Silent, Deadly Remedy”’ 23. Jeff McMahan (2005), ‘Just Cause for War’ D. Poverty and Distributive Justice 24. Peter Singer (1972), ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’ 25. Garrett Hardin (1974), ‘Living on a Lifeboat’ 26. Charles R. Beitz (1975), ‘Justice and International Relations’ 27. Henry Shue (1988), ‘Mediating Duties’ 28. John Rawls (1993), ‘The Law of Peoples’ 29. Thomas W. Pogge (1994), ‘An Egalitarian Law of Peoples’ E. The Global Polity 30. David Held (1992), ‘Democracy: From City-states to a Cosmopolitan Order?’ 31. Michael Zürn (2000), ‘Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation-State: The EU and Other International Institutions’ 32. Andrew Moravcsik (2004), ‘Is there a “Democratic Deficit” in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis’ 33. Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane (2006), ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’ |
segunda-feira, 6 de junho de 2011
International Relations and Foreign Policy of Brazil - works by Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Como no caso anterior, uma listagem simples de trabalhos em inglês, francês e espanhol, mas a partir de 2007, para ficar apenas nos mais recentes (e ainda assim exite certo overlapping com a lista do post anterior, mais completa e mais extensa)...
(arquivo em pdf, neste link)
PAULO ROBERTO DE ALMEIDA
International Relations and Foreign Policy of Brazil
A selection of works in English, in French, and Spanish (from 2007)
Up to date: June 5, 2011
2234. “L’historiographie économique brésilienne, de la fin du XIXème siècle au début du XXIème: une synthèse bibliographique”, Brasília, 5 janeiro 2011, 14 p.; rev. Porto Alegre, 8/01/2011, 17 p. Contribution à la revue Matériaux pour l’histoire de notre temps (BDIC); Spécial Brésil: historiographie et histoire.
2207. “Never Seen Before in Brazil: Lula’s grand diplomacy”, Shanghai, 18 outubro 2010, 20 p. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (vol. 53, n. 2, 2010, p. 160-177; ISSN: 0034-7329; link: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-73292010000200009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en; pdf: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbpi/v53n2/09.pdf). Relação de Publicados n 1013.
2202. “Now, an Economic Cold War: Old Realities, New Prospects”, Shanghai, 13 outubro 2010, 4 p. FRA, Revista de Ciencias y Humanidades de la Fundación Ramón Areces; Monográfico: “Mas Allá de la Crisis: El Futuro del Sistema Multilatearal (Madrid: Fundación Ramón Areces, Diciembre 2010, p. 116-120); blog Diplomatizzando (23/01/2011; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2011/01/economic-cold-war-artigo-pra-publicado.html). Relação de Publicados n. 1015.
2193. “Global Governance and Institutional Reform: a personal view”, Shanghai, 26 setembro 2010, 7 p. Joint Symposium: “Beyond the crisis: the future of the multilateral system” (Fundación Ramón Areces and OECD Development Centre; Madrid, 4-5 October 2010); blog Diplomatizzando (link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/10/governanca-global-e-reformas.html e http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/10/governanca-global-e-reformas_06.html).
2184. “La diplomatie de Lula (2003-2010): une analyse des résultats”, Beijing-Shanghai, 28.06.2010; Shanghai, 4.07-18.09. 2010, 14 p. Analyse critique de la diplomatie brésilienne. Publié In: Denis Rolland, Antonio Carlos Lessa (coords.), Relations Internationales du Brésil: Les Chemins de La Puissance; Brazil’s International Relations: Paths to Power (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2010, 2 vols; vol. I: Représentations Globales – Global Representations, p. 249-259; ISBN: 978-2-296-13543-7); blog Diplomatizzando (http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/10/relations-internationales-du-bresil.html). Relação de Publicados n. 998.
2172. “Brazil, from Emerging to an Emerged Country: A critical assessment of Lula’s diplomacy”, Shanghai, August 14, 2010, 22 p. Article prepared for a special number of Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional on Lula’s diplomacy. Not published.
2160. “Balance Énergétique du Brésil: interview à France Culture”, Shanghai, 1 julho 2010, 5 p. Interview with Thierry Garcin, Radio France Internationale, “Les Enjeux Internationaux”, Blog Diplomatizzando (http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/07/balance-energetique-du-bresil-paulo-r.html). Relação de Publicados n. 980.
2148. “The Foreign Policy of Brazil under Lula”, Shanghai-Hangzhou, May 27-30, 2010, 9 p. Answers to a PhD. Candidate at LSE.
2134. “Política exterior: potencia regional o un actor global”, Shanghai, 14 abril 2010, 7 p. Colaboración a dossier especial de Vanguardia (Barcelona; www.vanguardiadossier.com) sobre Brasil. Diplomatizzando (28.06.2010; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/06/brasil-potencia-regional-o-ator-global.html).
2128. “Attraction and Repulsion: Brazil and the American world”, Shanghai, 8 abril 2010, 9 p. Debate by Sean Clark e Sabrina Hocque, What Lies Ahead?: Debating the Prospects for a ‘Post-American World’, commenting Fareed Zakaria:The Post-American World (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009). Publicado in: Clark, Sean and Sabrina Hoque (eds.). Debating a Post-American World: What Lies Ahead? (London: Routledge, 2011).
2112. “España y Brasil: reconocimiento y relaciones en el siglo XIX”, Brasília, 16 fevereiro 2010, 20 p. Ensayo para obra sobre la firma de los tratados de reconocimiento y amistad entre España y las repúblicas latinoamericanas en el siglo XIX, bajo la dirección de Carlos Malamud, del Instituto Elcano de Madrid. Para publicación en la série “América Latina en la historia contemporánea", patrocinada por Fundación Mapfre y Santillana”.
2060. “Brasil y su Política Exterior: una intervista periodistica”, Brasilia, 12 novembro 2009, 2 p. La Nación, Chile - Sección Internacional; blog Diplomatizzando (03.03.2010; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/03/1740-politica-exterior-de-brasil.html#links).
2043. “Entretien sur le président Lula”, Brasília, 9 setembro 2009, 8 p. revue Décideurs (http://www.magazine-decideurs.com/magazine/). Blog Textos PRA (17.09.2009; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2009/09/518-entrevista-revistda-francesa-sobre.html). Décideurs, Blog Diplomatizzando (17.09.2009; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2009/09/1380-entretien-sur-le-bresil-pour-la.html); “Lula: orateur par excellence”, Décideurs: Stratégie Finance Droit (Paris: n. 109, octobre 2009, p. 13; ISSN: 1764-6774). Relação de Publicados n. 930.
2028. “The question of Ossetia and Russian intervention: a personal Brazilian view”, Brasília, July 23, 2009, 8 p. Answers to questions submitted by Yulia Netesova, European Bureau Chief of the Russian Journal. Divulgado no blog Diplomatizzando (22.11.2009; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2009/11/1532-russina-intervention-in-south.html ).
2023. “Non-Intervention: a political concept, in a legal wrap: a historical and juridical appraisal of the Brazilian doctrine and practice”, Brasília, 8 Julho 2009, 17 p. (7.090 palavras). Blog Textos PRA (03.03.2010; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2010/03/569-brazil-and-non-intervention-paulo-r.html).
2020. “Le Brésil à deux moments de la globalisation capitaliste et à un siècle de distance (1909-2009)”, Brasília, 30 junho 2009, 25 p. International Symposium “Inequalities in the World System: Political Science, Philosophy, Law”, São Paulo, 3-6 de setembro de 2009; Cebrap. Blog Textos PRA (03.03.2010; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2010/03/570-le-bresil-deux-moments-de-la.html).
2008. “Financial Architecture of the Post-Crisis World: Efficiency of Solutions”, Brasília, 22 maio 2009, 7 p. Answers to questions presented by researcher from the Post-Crisis World Institute Foundation, Moscou (Michael Mizhinski). Blog Diplomatizzando (03.03.2010: link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/03/1741-financial-architecture-of-post.html).
1999. “The share of the United States and Brazil in the modern civilization: A centennial homage to Joaquim Nabuco’s commencement speech of 1909”, Urbana, 23 abril 2009, 15 p. Paper presented at the Symposium: Nabuco and Madison: A Centennial Celebration (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, April 24-25, 2009); Available at link: http://www.pralmeida.org/05DocsPRA/1999NabucoMadison.pdf.
1996. “Brazil’s role in South America and in the global arena”, Urbana, 13 abril 2009, 7 p. Answers to questions presented by a M.A. Candidate 2010 of the Latin American & Hemispheric Studies Elliott School of International Affairs - George Washington University. Blog Diplomatizzando (13.04.2009; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2009/04/1063-turismo-academico-13-brazils-role.html).
1983. “Mercosur-European Union Cooperation: A case study on the effects of EU activities and cooperation with Mercosur on regional democracy building”, Brasília, 2 fevereiro 2009, 26 p. Paper prepared for a Project of International IDEA to map out and analyze the perceptions on the European Union as an actor in democracy building, as seen from the EU's partner regions. Blog Textos PRA (03.03.2010; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2010/03/571-eu-activities-and-cooperation-with.html).
1950. “Les Brics et l’économie brésilienne : Interview pour la Chaire des Amériques – Université Paris I”, Brasília, 11 novembro 2008, 6 p. Links: (a) Brics: http://www.economie-et-societe.com/article-24982794.html; (b) Brésil: http://www.economie-et-societe.com/article-25122338.html.
1942. “La puissance américaine vue d'Amérique Latine”, Brasília, 21 outubro 2008, 2 p. Interview à Radio France Culture, journaliste Thierry Garcin (Paris: émission le 29.10.2008, à 7h15, 10 minutes; link: http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/enjeux_inter/fiche.php?diffusion_id=66840).
1902. “Brazil in the world context, at the first decade of the 21th century: regional leadership and strategies for its integration into the world economy”, Rio de Janeiro, 26 junho 2008, 22 p. Publishedo as “Brazil in the International Context at the First Decade of the 21st Century: Regional Leadership and Strategies for Integration”. In: Joam Evans (org.), Brazilian Defence Policies: Current Trends and Regional Implications (London: Dunkling Books, 2009, p. 11-26; ISBN: 978-0-9563478-0-0; link: http://www.pralmeida.org/05DocsPRA/1902BrForPolicyStrategies.pdf). Relação de Publicados n. 935.
1900. “Brazil: Mileposts to Responsible Stakeholdership”, Brasília-Tóquio, 24 junho 2008, 53 p. Joint text, written with Miguel Diaz, for the project “Mileposts to Responsible Stakeholdership” of the Stanley Foundation (http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/); published at the website of the Project “Powers and Principles: International Leadership in a Shrinking World” (November 3rd, 2008; link: http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/articles.cfm?ID=504), under the title: “Brazil's Candidacy for Major Power Status”, by Miguel Diaz and Paulo Roberto Almeida, with a reaction by Georges D. Landau (Muscatine, IA: The Stanley Foundation, Working Paper, November 2008, 24 p.; link: http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/powersandprinciples/BrazilCandidacyMPStatus.PDF). Published in book form as: “Brazil's Candidacy for Major Power Status”, with Miguel Diaz. In: Michael Schiffer and David Shorr (Eds.). Powers and Principles: International Leadership in a Shrinking World (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009, 328p.; Co-published with: The Stanley Foundation; ISBN Cloth: 978-0-7391-3543-3; $85.00; ISBN Paper: 978-0-7391-3544-0; $32.95; p. 225-250). Link: http://www.pralmeida.org/01Livros/2FramesBooks/109StanleyBook2009.html. Relação de Publicados n. 897.
1890. “Brazil and the G8 Heiligendamm Process”, 18 maio 2008, 31 p. Published with Denise Gregory, in Andrew F. Cooper and Agata Antkiewicz, Emerging Powers in Global Governance: Lessons from the Heiligendamm Process. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Studies in International Governance Series, October 2008, p. 137-161; ISBN: 978-1-55458–057-6. © 2008 The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and Wilfrid Laurier University Press; Available at: http://www.press.wlu.ca/Catalog/cooper.shtml).
1868. “Brazil’s Integration into Global Governance: The rise of the Outreach-5 countries to a G-8 (plus) status”, Brasília, 9 março 2008, 29 p. Published, with Denise Gregory , as “Brazil”: Growth and Responsibility: The positioning of emerging powers in the global governance system (Berlin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2009, 126 p.; ISBN: 978-3-940955-45-6; p. 11-30; link: http://www.kas.de/wf/en/33.15573/-/-/-/index.html?src=nl09-01). Trabalhos publicados n. 887.
1859. “Questionnaire on the G8 Summit Reform Process”, Brasília, 12 fevereiro 2008, 3 p. Answers and comments to a questionnaire on the Heiligendam Process (expansion of G-8 countries to the outreach 5) and global governance reform, presented by Prof. Colin I. Bradford, Jr. (Brookings Institution, Washington, and Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Canada). Not published.
1856. “Brazil and Global Governance”, Brasília, 30 janeiro 2008, 17 p. Colaboração a trabalho a ser apresentado pelo CEBRI para centro de estudos do Canadá (Centre for International Governance Innovation - CIGI). Not published.
1811. “The Foreign Policy of Brazil under Lula: Regional and global diplomatic strategies”, Brasília, 30 setembro 2007, 25 p. Published as “Lula’s Foreign Policy: Regional and Global Strategies”, chap. 9, In Werner Baer and Joseph Love (eds.), Brazil under Lula (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009, 326 p.; ISBN: 970-0-230-60816-0; p. 167-183; link: http://www.pralmeida.org/05DocsPRA/1811BrForPolicyPalgrave2009.pdf). Publicados n. 811.
1748. “Brazil as a regional player and as an emerging global power: Foreign policy strategies and the impact on the new international order”. Briefing Paper, series Dialogue on Globalization (Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, July 2007; link: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/global/04709.pdf). Publicados n. 780bis.
(arquivo em pdf, neste link)
PAULO ROBERTO DE ALMEIDA
International Relations and Foreign Policy of Brazil
A selection of works in English, in French, and Spanish (from 2007)
Up to date: June 5, 2011
2234. “L’historiographie économique brésilienne, de la fin du XIXème siècle au début du XXIème: une synthèse bibliographique”, Brasília, 5 janeiro 2011, 14 p.; rev. Porto Alegre, 8/01/2011, 17 p. Contribution à la revue Matériaux pour l’histoire de notre temps (BDIC); Spécial Brésil: historiographie et histoire.
2207. “Never Seen Before in Brazil: Lula’s grand diplomacy”, Shanghai, 18 outubro 2010, 20 p. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (vol. 53, n. 2, 2010, p. 160-177; ISSN: 0034-7329; link: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-73292010000200009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en; pdf: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbpi/v53n2/09.pdf). Relação de Publicados n 1013.
2202. “Now, an Economic Cold War: Old Realities, New Prospects”, Shanghai, 13 outubro 2010, 4 p. FRA, Revista de Ciencias y Humanidades de la Fundación Ramón Areces; Monográfico: “Mas Allá de la Crisis: El Futuro del Sistema Multilatearal (Madrid: Fundación Ramón Areces, Diciembre 2010, p. 116-120); blog Diplomatizzando (23/01/2011; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2011/01/economic-cold-war-artigo-pra-publicado.html). Relação de Publicados n. 1015.
2193. “Global Governance and Institutional Reform: a personal view”, Shanghai, 26 setembro 2010, 7 p. Joint Symposium: “Beyond the crisis: the future of the multilateral system” (Fundación Ramón Areces and OECD Development Centre; Madrid, 4-5 October 2010); blog Diplomatizzando (link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/10/governanca-global-e-reformas.html e http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/10/governanca-global-e-reformas_06.html).
2184. “La diplomatie de Lula (2003-2010): une analyse des résultats”, Beijing-Shanghai, 28.06.2010; Shanghai, 4.07-18.09. 2010, 14 p. Analyse critique de la diplomatie brésilienne. Publié In: Denis Rolland, Antonio Carlos Lessa (coords.), Relations Internationales du Brésil: Les Chemins de La Puissance; Brazil’s International Relations: Paths to Power (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2010, 2 vols; vol. I: Représentations Globales – Global Representations, p. 249-259; ISBN: 978-2-296-13543-7); blog Diplomatizzando (http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/10/relations-internationales-du-bresil.html). Relação de Publicados n. 998.
2172. “Brazil, from Emerging to an Emerged Country: A critical assessment of Lula’s diplomacy”, Shanghai, August 14, 2010, 22 p. Article prepared for a special number of Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional on Lula’s diplomacy. Not published.
2160. “Balance Énergétique du Brésil: interview à France Culture”, Shanghai, 1 julho 2010, 5 p. Interview with Thierry Garcin, Radio France Internationale, “Les Enjeux Internationaux”, Blog Diplomatizzando (http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/07/balance-energetique-du-bresil-paulo-r.html). Relação de Publicados n. 980.
2148. “The Foreign Policy of Brazil under Lula”, Shanghai-Hangzhou, May 27-30, 2010, 9 p. Answers to a PhD. Candidate at LSE.
2134. “Política exterior: potencia regional o un actor global”, Shanghai, 14 abril 2010, 7 p. Colaboración a dossier especial de Vanguardia (Barcelona; www.vanguardiadossier.com) sobre Brasil. Diplomatizzando (28.06.2010; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/06/brasil-potencia-regional-o-ator-global.html).
2128. “Attraction and Repulsion: Brazil and the American world”, Shanghai, 8 abril 2010, 9 p. Debate by Sean Clark e Sabrina Hocque, What Lies Ahead?: Debating the Prospects for a ‘Post-American World’, commenting Fareed Zakaria:The Post-American World (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009). Publicado in: Clark, Sean and Sabrina Hoque (eds.). Debating a Post-American World: What Lies Ahead? (London: Routledge, 2011).
2112. “España y Brasil: reconocimiento y relaciones en el siglo XIX”, Brasília, 16 fevereiro 2010, 20 p. Ensayo para obra sobre la firma de los tratados de reconocimiento y amistad entre España y las repúblicas latinoamericanas en el siglo XIX, bajo la dirección de Carlos Malamud, del Instituto Elcano de Madrid. Para publicación en la série “América Latina en la historia contemporánea", patrocinada por Fundación Mapfre y Santillana”.
2060. “Brasil y su Política Exterior: una intervista periodistica”, Brasilia, 12 novembro 2009, 2 p. La Nación, Chile - Sección Internacional; blog Diplomatizzando (03.03.2010; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/03/1740-politica-exterior-de-brasil.html#links).
2043. “Entretien sur le président Lula”, Brasília, 9 setembro 2009, 8 p. revue Décideurs (http://www.magazine-decideurs.com/magazine/). Blog Textos PRA (17.09.2009; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2009/09/518-entrevista-revistda-francesa-sobre.html). Décideurs, Blog Diplomatizzando (17.09.2009; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2009/09/1380-entretien-sur-le-bresil-pour-la.html); “Lula: orateur par excellence”, Décideurs: Stratégie Finance Droit (Paris: n. 109, octobre 2009, p. 13; ISSN: 1764-6774). Relação de Publicados n. 930.
2028. “The question of Ossetia and Russian intervention: a personal Brazilian view”, Brasília, July 23, 2009, 8 p. Answers to questions submitted by Yulia Netesova, European Bureau Chief of the Russian Journal. Divulgado no blog Diplomatizzando (22.11.2009; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2009/11/1532-russina-intervention-in-south.html ).
2023. “Non-Intervention: a political concept, in a legal wrap: a historical and juridical appraisal of the Brazilian doctrine and practice”, Brasília, 8 Julho 2009, 17 p. (7.090 palavras). Blog Textos PRA (03.03.2010; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2010/03/569-brazil-and-non-intervention-paulo-r.html).
2020. “Le Brésil à deux moments de la globalisation capitaliste et à un siècle de distance (1909-2009)”, Brasília, 30 junho 2009, 25 p. International Symposium “Inequalities in the World System: Political Science, Philosophy, Law”, São Paulo, 3-6 de setembro de 2009; Cebrap. Blog Textos PRA (03.03.2010; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2010/03/570-le-bresil-deux-moments-de-la.html).
2008. “Financial Architecture of the Post-Crisis World: Efficiency of Solutions”, Brasília, 22 maio 2009, 7 p. Answers to questions presented by researcher from the Post-Crisis World Institute Foundation, Moscou (Michael Mizhinski). Blog Diplomatizzando (03.03.2010: link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/03/1741-financial-architecture-of-post.html).
1999. “The share of the United States and Brazil in the modern civilization: A centennial homage to Joaquim Nabuco’s commencement speech of 1909”, Urbana, 23 abril 2009, 15 p. Paper presented at the Symposium: Nabuco and Madison: A Centennial Celebration (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, April 24-25, 2009); Available at link: http://www.pralmeida.org/05DocsPRA/1999NabucoMadison.pdf.
1996. “Brazil’s role in South America and in the global arena”, Urbana, 13 abril 2009, 7 p. Answers to questions presented by a M.A. Candidate 2010 of the Latin American & Hemispheric Studies Elliott School of International Affairs - George Washington University. Blog Diplomatizzando (13.04.2009; link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2009/04/1063-turismo-academico-13-brazils-role.html).
1983. “Mercosur-European Union Cooperation: A case study on the effects of EU activities and cooperation with Mercosur on regional democracy building”, Brasília, 2 fevereiro 2009, 26 p. Paper prepared for a Project of International IDEA to map out and analyze the perceptions on the European Union as an actor in democracy building, as seen from the EU's partner regions. Blog Textos PRA (03.03.2010; link: http://textospra.blogspot.com/2010/03/571-eu-activities-and-cooperation-with.html).
1950. “Les Brics et l’économie brésilienne : Interview pour la Chaire des Amériques – Université Paris I”, Brasília, 11 novembro 2008, 6 p. Links: (a) Brics: http://www.economie-et-societe.com/article-24982794.html; (b) Brésil: http://www.economie-et-societe.com/article-25122338.html.
1942. “La puissance américaine vue d'Amérique Latine”, Brasília, 21 outubro 2008, 2 p. Interview à Radio France Culture, journaliste Thierry Garcin (Paris: émission le 29.10.2008, à 7h15, 10 minutes; link: http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/enjeux_inter/fiche.php?diffusion_id=66840).
1902. “Brazil in the world context, at the first decade of the 21th century: regional leadership and strategies for its integration into the world economy”, Rio de Janeiro, 26 junho 2008, 22 p. Publishedo as “Brazil in the International Context at the First Decade of the 21st Century: Regional Leadership and Strategies for Integration”. In: Joam Evans (org.), Brazilian Defence Policies: Current Trends and Regional Implications (London: Dunkling Books, 2009, p. 11-26; ISBN: 978-0-9563478-0-0; link: http://www.pralmeida.org/05DocsPRA/1902BrForPolicyStrategies.pdf). Relação de Publicados n. 935.
1900. “Brazil: Mileposts to Responsible Stakeholdership”, Brasília-Tóquio, 24 junho 2008, 53 p. Joint text, written with Miguel Diaz, for the project “Mileposts to Responsible Stakeholdership” of the Stanley Foundation (http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/); published at the website of the Project “Powers and Principles: International Leadership in a Shrinking World” (November 3rd, 2008; link: http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/articles.cfm?ID=504), under the title: “Brazil's Candidacy for Major Power Status”, by Miguel Diaz and Paulo Roberto Almeida, with a reaction by Georges D. Landau (Muscatine, IA: The Stanley Foundation, Working Paper, November 2008, 24 p.; link: http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/powersandprinciples/BrazilCandidacyMPStatus.PDF). Published in book form as: “Brazil's Candidacy for Major Power Status”, with Miguel Diaz. In: Michael Schiffer and David Shorr (Eds.). Powers and Principles: International Leadership in a Shrinking World (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009, 328p.; Co-published with: The Stanley Foundation; ISBN Cloth: 978-0-7391-3543-3; $85.00; ISBN Paper: 978-0-7391-3544-0; $32.95; p. 225-250). Link: http://www.pralmeida.org/01Livros/2FramesBooks/109StanleyBook2009.html. Relação de Publicados n. 897.
1890. “Brazil and the G8 Heiligendamm Process”, 18 maio 2008, 31 p. Published with Denise Gregory, in Andrew F. Cooper and Agata Antkiewicz, Emerging Powers in Global Governance: Lessons from the Heiligendamm Process. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Studies in International Governance Series, October 2008, p. 137-161; ISBN: 978-1-55458–057-6. © 2008 The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and Wilfrid Laurier University Press; Available at: http://www.press.wlu.ca/Catalog/cooper.shtml).
1868. “Brazil’s Integration into Global Governance: The rise of the Outreach-5 countries to a G-8 (plus) status”, Brasília, 9 março 2008, 29 p. Published, with Denise Gregory , as “Brazil”: Growth and Responsibility: The positioning of emerging powers in the global governance system (Berlin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2009, 126 p.; ISBN: 978-3-940955-45-6; p. 11-30; link: http://www.kas.de/wf/en/33.15573/-/-/-/index.html?src=nl09-01). Trabalhos publicados n. 887.
1859. “Questionnaire on the G8 Summit Reform Process”, Brasília, 12 fevereiro 2008, 3 p. Answers and comments to a questionnaire on the Heiligendam Process (expansion of G-8 countries to the outreach 5) and global governance reform, presented by Prof. Colin I. Bradford, Jr. (Brookings Institution, Washington, and Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Canada). Not published.
1856. “Brazil and Global Governance”, Brasília, 30 janeiro 2008, 17 p. Colaboração a trabalho a ser apresentado pelo CEBRI para centro de estudos do Canadá (Centre for International Governance Innovation - CIGI). Not published.
1811. “The Foreign Policy of Brazil under Lula: Regional and global diplomatic strategies”, Brasília, 30 setembro 2007, 25 p. Published as “Lula’s Foreign Policy: Regional and Global Strategies”, chap. 9, In Werner Baer and Joseph Love (eds.), Brazil under Lula (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009, 326 p.; ISBN: 970-0-230-60816-0; p. 167-183; link: http://www.pralmeida.org/05DocsPRA/1811BrForPolicyPalgrave2009.pdf). Publicados n. 811.
1748. “Brazil as a regional player and as an emerging global power: Foreign policy strategies and the impact on the new international order”. Briefing Paper, series Dialogue on Globalization (Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, July 2007; link: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/global/04709.pdf). Publicados n. 780bis.
terça-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2010
Mao Tse-tung: o maior assassino da história da humanidade
Mao Tse-tung foi, de fato e de longe, o maior genocida em massa do século XX, conseguindo superar as estatísticas já por si horripilantes de Hitler e Stalin (estes dois figurariam em qualquer Guiness de mortes provocadas, isto é, de assassinos frios), mas eu não sabia que o Mao Tse-tung era informado precisamente sobre as mortes provocadas por seu Grande Salto para trás. Sabia-se que o programa tinha provocado mortes, mas não se sabia que o PCC fazia uma estatística precisa da extensão da hecatombe.
---------------------- Paulo Roberto de Almeida
John Lewis Gaddis on
the History of International Relations
Yale professor John Lewis Gaddis points to research showing that, contrary to widespread belief, Mao was regularly briefed on the famine he had caused, making him, if you go by body count, the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century.
Before we talk about your five book choices I wanted to find out a bit more about what made you so interested in studying the Cold War and international relations?
It was an opportunistic choice. I was in graduate school during the late 1960s, when the first American documents on the early Cold War were being declassified. A good dissertation, I thought, should have fresh sources, should be on something significant, and should have the potential to become a book that people might still find useful ten or 15 years into the future. Getting in on the ground floor of Cold War history seemed like a good bet – it was still going on at the time, and very much on everyone’s mind. Beyond that, I wasn’t thinking in any particularly sophisticated way.
Your five books are actually all written by your former students. What do you think your students have been able to teach you?
Part of the fun of being a teacher is that you always learn from teaching. Usually that comes from how you organise and present the materials yourself, but surprisingly often it originates with students – particularly at the graduate level but sometimes also at the undergraduate level in seminars and senior essays. I’m lucky in that there are always new materials for my students to work with in the field of recent international history, not least those that have opened up in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China and elsewhere since the Cold War ended. It’s also important, though, that the students are of a new generation, and that in itself brings different perspectives from my own. The result is new angles of vision on some old issues, but also the identification of new ones that older scholars have rarely, if ever, written about.
That is very generous of you to be so honest. Many professors never accept the influence of their students on their work.
Thanks, but it’s really self-interest. Think how boring it would be to go through life repeating your old lectures.
It was an opportunistic choice. I was in graduate school during the late 1960s, when the first American documents on the early Cold War were being declassified. A good dissertation, I thought, should have fresh sources, should be on something significant, and should have the potential to become a book that people might still find useful ten or 15 years into the future. Getting in on the ground floor of Cold War history seemed like a good bet – it was still going on at the time, and very much on everyone’s mind. Beyond that, I wasn’t thinking in any particularly sophisticated way.
Your five books are actually all written by your former students. What do you think your students have been able to teach you?
Part of the fun of being a teacher is that you always learn from teaching. Usually that comes from how you organise and present the materials yourself, but surprisingly often it originates with students – particularly at the graduate level but sometimes also at the undergraduate level in seminars and senior essays. I’m lucky in that there are always new materials for my students to work with in the field of recent international history, not least those that have opened up in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China and elsewhere since the Cold War ended. It’s also important, though, that the students are of a new generation, and that in itself brings different perspectives from my own. The result is new angles of vision on some old issues, but also the identification of new ones that older scholars have rarely, if ever, written about.
That is very generous of you to be so honest. Many professors never accept the influence of their students on their work.
Thanks, but it’s really self-interest. Think how boring it would be to go through life repeating your old lectures.
So what did Hal Brands teach you about Latin America’s Cold War? He was taking a more international perspective with this one wasn’t he?
He was indeed. Hal finished his dissertation only last year, and yet the book that has come out of it is the most comprehensive overview of US-Latin American relations from the 1960s to the 1980s that anyone anywhere has yet produced. It’s amazing to have a recent PhD write a book of which professors in mid-career and beyond would have been proud. Sometimes your own graduate students can zoom way ahead of you.
What new ground was he covering to enable him to zoom ahead?
Most important are the sources Hal has used. Most books on US-Latin American relations have been written chiefly from US sources, or, if they have used Latin American sources, it’s often been the archives of only one country. Hal worked in the archives of ten Latin American countries, as well as those of the United States, Canada, Germany, and, through published or online collections, those of the Soviet Union. So we get a truly international view of the Cold War; one written, for the first time, as much from the perspective of the Latin Americans as from that of the United States.
And how have critics received it in Latin America; do they think he has been fair towards them?
It is too early to say because the book has just come out. My guess is that it will be controversial for a couple of reasons. First, because previous histories of the Cold War in this region have been based so heavily on US sources, they’ve tended to exaggerate, and to be extremely critical of, the role the US has played in that part of the world. Most of the bad things that happened there, they insist – the authoritarian regimes, the civil wars, the human rights abuses – happened because Washington caused them to happen.
Hal acknowledges that there’s plenty of evidence for this. But he also points out that to blame everything on the US is to deny ‘agency’ to the Latin Americans, a strange conclusion for histories that purport to be sensitive to their views. The US from time to time acted repressively in Latin America, but it did not invent repression there – it has a very long history. Nor was the concept of a Cold War anti-communist crusade, or the violence often associated with it, something always imposed from Washington. It had Latin American roots as well.
So Hal Brands has given us a much more balanced treatment of US-Latin American relations than we’ve had up to this point. Of course it will be controversial. But it will also, I think, be definitive.
He was indeed. Hal finished his dissertation only last year, and yet the book that has come out of it is the most comprehensive overview of US-Latin American relations from the 1960s to the 1980s that anyone anywhere has yet produced. It’s amazing to have a recent PhD write a book of which professors in mid-career and beyond would have been proud. Sometimes your own graduate students can zoom way ahead of you.
What new ground was he covering to enable him to zoom ahead?
Most important are the sources Hal has used. Most books on US-Latin American relations have been written chiefly from US sources, or, if they have used Latin American sources, it’s often been the archives of only one country. Hal worked in the archives of ten Latin American countries, as well as those of the United States, Canada, Germany, and, through published or online collections, those of the Soviet Union. So we get a truly international view of the Cold War; one written, for the first time, as much from the perspective of the Latin Americans as from that of the United States.
And how have critics received it in Latin America; do they think he has been fair towards them?
It is too early to say because the book has just come out. My guess is that it will be controversial for a couple of reasons. First, because previous histories of the Cold War in this region have been based so heavily on US sources, they’ve tended to exaggerate, and to be extremely critical of, the role the US has played in that part of the world. Most of the bad things that happened there, they insist – the authoritarian regimes, the civil wars, the human rights abuses – happened because Washington caused them to happen.
Hal acknowledges that there’s plenty of evidence for this. But he also points out that to blame everything on the US is to deny ‘agency’ to the Latin Americans, a strange conclusion for histories that purport to be sensitive to their views. The US from time to time acted repressively in Latin America, but it did not invent repression there – it has a very long history. Nor was the concept of a Cold War anti-communist crusade, or the violence often associated with it, something always imposed from Washington. It had Latin American roots as well.
So Hal Brands has given us a much more balanced treatment of US-Latin American relations than we’ve had up to this point. Of course it will be controversial. But it will also, I think, be definitive.
Your next book, by Lorenz Lüthi, looks at The Sino-Soviet Split.
Lorenz, while a graduate student, learned both Russian and Chinese. There aren’t many professors, even, who’ve managed that. So when we were discussing dissertation topics, I suggested something ambitious: why not write a history of the Sino-Soviet conflict? There wasn’t one based on Russian and Chinese archives, and yet this was an event of great importance in the history of the Cold War.
So Lorenz looked into it, concluded that it was possible, and wound up spending a lot of time in Moscow and Beijing, as well as Eastern Europe (the Russians and the Chinese complained frequently to the fraternal comrades about each other), working on the project. His book is now the standard account of the Sino-Soviet conflict, and it reaches a couple of important conclusions. One is that ideology was not just window-dressing. Leaders in both capitals took it extremely seriously, and rather than being a source of cohesion, as Marxist-Leninist theory suggested it should have been, it caused deep divisions. The other is that Mao Zedong was chiefly responsible for this. The Soviets, under Khrushchev, tried repeatedly to smooth over the difficulties, but Mao consistently frustrated those efforts.
There’s one other thing about Lorenz’s book that’s important. We’ve long known that something like 30 million Chinese starved to death during Mao’s Great Leap Forward, his disastrous effort to industrialise China in 1958-61. We’d always assumed, though, that he didn’t know about this – that Mao’s underlings kept it from him. Lorenz shows conclusively that this was not the case: Mao was getting regular reports on the famine he was causing, and yet for a long time he did nothing about it. Which makes him, if you go by the body count, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
So you see a gap in the market and match your students’ talents to it!
Only partially. We’re blessed with great students at Yale. They’re pretty perceptive themselves in seeing where the opportunities lie. All I’ve tried to do is to tell them that it’s OK to think big. Admittedly this goes against the way a lot of graduate training is done, both at Yale and elsewhere – there’s too much of an emphasis on micro-topics, that only microscopic numbers of people will want to read about. My pitch to the students is that if you’re going to spend four to six years getting a PhD in history, you might as well do a dissertation that can quickly become a book that will attract more than four to six readers – and that might get you a tenured professorship somewhere. Life is too short to do otherwise.
Lorenz, while a graduate student, learned both Russian and Chinese. There aren’t many professors, even, who’ve managed that. So when we were discussing dissertation topics, I suggested something ambitious: why not write a history of the Sino-Soviet conflict? There wasn’t one based on Russian and Chinese archives, and yet this was an event of great importance in the history of the Cold War.
So Lorenz looked into it, concluded that it was possible, and wound up spending a lot of time in Moscow and Beijing, as well as Eastern Europe (the Russians and the Chinese complained frequently to the fraternal comrades about each other), working on the project. His book is now the standard account of the Sino-Soviet conflict, and it reaches a couple of important conclusions. One is that ideology was not just window-dressing. Leaders in both capitals took it extremely seriously, and rather than being a source of cohesion, as Marxist-Leninist theory suggested it should have been, it caused deep divisions. The other is that Mao Zedong was chiefly responsible for this. The Soviets, under Khrushchev, tried repeatedly to smooth over the difficulties, but Mao consistently frustrated those efforts.
There’s one other thing about Lorenz’s book that’s important. We’ve long known that something like 30 million Chinese starved to death during Mao’s Great Leap Forward, his disastrous effort to industrialise China in 1958-61. We’d always assumed, though, that he didn’t know about this – that Mao’s underlings kept it from him. Lorenz shows conclusively that this was not the case: Mao was getting regular reports on the famine he was causing, and yet for a long time he did nothing about it. Which makes him, if you go by the body count, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
So you see a gap in the market and match your students’ talents to it!
Only partially. We’re blessed with great students at Yale. They’re pretty perceptive themselves in seeing where the opportunities lie. All I’ve tried to do is to tell them that it’s OK to think big. Admittedly this goes against the way a lot of graduate training is done, both at Yale and elsewhere – there’s too much of an emphasis on micro-topics, that only microscopic numbers of people will want to read about. My pitch to the students is that if you’re going to spend four to six years getting a PhD in history, you might as well do a dissertation that can quickly become a book that will attract more than four to six readers – and that might get you a tenured professorship somewhere. Life is too short to do otherwise.
Very sensible! Let’s move on to The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism by Erez Manela.
Erez is indeed a tenured professor in the Harvard History Department, a status not easily attained. He reached it remarkably quickly, on the basis of a good topic and unusual linguistic skills.
Which is a very useful skill to have because the theme with all of these books is the use of primary sources.
Right. Erez came to Yale with Chinese and Arabic, plus Hebrew (he grew up in Israel), and several European languages as well. His dissertation was interesting because it focused on the macro-implications of a micro-moment.
The ‘moment’, incorporated in the title of his book, was Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points speech of January of 1918, in which he called, among other things, for self-determination – the right of people to determine their own forms of government. He did so for both realistic and idealistic reasons. The realism had to do with trying to undermine the appeal of the Bolshevik Revolution, which had just taken place, as well as that of Germany and its allies, with whom the US was now at war. The idealism lay in the fact that Wilson believed in what he said – without giving much thought to how widely it should apply.
Although aimed at the Russians and the Germans, copies of the speech went all over the world. No historian had assessed the consequences of this, however, until Erez started working with Egyptian sources, from which he learned that the Egyptians – still under the informal control of the British – had been very much excited by what Wilson had said.
So I suggested to Erez, since he did have Chinese, that he see if there were parallel reactions in China. There were indeed, in the form of student protests against the assignment to the Japanese, by the World War I victors, of a sphere of influence in China. One of those students, as it happened, was the young Mao Zedong. That got us to thinking about other national liberation movements: had the Fourteen Points speech influenced British-controlled India, for example, or Japanese-controlled Korea?
The answer was yes, and fortunately the sources for both countries were in English – Gandhi, of course, spoke it fluently, and Syngman Rhee, the most influential Korean exile at the time, had been educated at Princeton. So Erez constructed a four-part comparative study – the reaction to Wilson in Egypt, China, India and Korea – thereby giving us a new view of a familiar topic: the book is really about the Wilsonian origins of what, years later, we call the ‘third world’. So, as with the work of Hal and Lorenz, I’ve had to rewrite my lectures.
Erez is indeed a tenured professor in the Harvard History Department, a status not easily attained. He reached it remarkably quickly, on the basis of a good topic and unusual linguistic skills.
Which is a very useful skill to have because the theme with all of these books is the use of primary sources.
Right. Erez came to Yale with Chinese and Arabic, plus Hebrew (he grew up in Israel), and several European languages as well. His dissertation was interesting because it focused on the macro-implications of a micro-moment.
The ‘moment’, incorporated in the title of his book, was Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points speech of January of 1918, in which he called, among other things, for self-determination – the right of people to determine their own forms of government. He did so for both realistic and idealistic reasons. The realism had to do with trying to undermine the appeal of the Bolshevik Revolution, which had just taken place, as well as that of Germany and its allies, with whom the US was now at war. The idealism lay in the fact that Wilson believed in what he said – without giving much thought to how widely it should apply.
Although aimed at the Russians and the Germans, copies of the speech went all over the world. No historian had assessed the consequences of this, however, until Erez started working with Egyptian sources, from which he learned that the Egyptians – still under the informal control of the British – had been very much excited by what Wilson had said.
So I suggested to Erez, since he did have Chinese, that he see if there were parallel reactions in China. There were indeed, in the form of student protests against the assignment to the Japanese, by the World War I victors, of a sphere of influence in China. One of those students, as it happened, was the young Mao Zedong. That got us to thinking about other national liberation movements: had the Fourteen Points speech influenced British-controlled India, for example, or Japanese-controlled Korea?
The answer was yes, and fortunately the sources for both countries were in English – Gandhi, of course, spoke it fluently, and Syngman Rhee, the most influential Korean exile at the time, had been educated at Princeton. So Erez constructed a four-part comparative study – the reaction to Wilson in Egypt, China, India and Korea – thereby giving us a new view of a familiar topic: the book is really about the Wilsonian origins of what, years later, we call the ‘third world’. So, as with the work of Hal and Lorenz, I’ve had to rewrite my lectures.
Your next choice is the controversial Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Détente by Jeremi Suri, which has led to some heated debate.
Yes, but in a good way. This dissertation got started when Jeremi and I began talking one day about the absence of good histories of the détente era.
And for those who may not have come across this term, what does détente mean?
It’s the period of simultaneous improvement in Soviet-American and Sino-American relations during the late 1960s and early 1970s. So it’s associated with Nixon and Kissinger, but also Willy Brandt in Germany, Leonid Brezhnev in the USSR, and of course Mao in China because of Nixon’s extraordinary trip there in 1972.
Our first thought was that Jeremi should do a comparative history of these countries’ diplomacy at the time. But he, like many of our students, was interested in taking diplomatic history beyond the traditional diplomat, to look at cultural influences on the conduct of international relations. This meant focusing on what was happening inside each of the different countries.
So it is like the historiography of diplomacy?
It’s more like a reconsideration of what the history of diplomacy ought to include. For Jeremi, it was at first the protest movements that were such a prominent feature of the 1960s in the US: anti-nuclear, civil rights, women’s rights, and certainly anti-Vietnam War. I said fine, but what was happening at the time in Europe? In the Soviet Union? In China?
So this became an international history of protest movements, and Jeremi did find parallels. For example, KGB reports on Soviet youth at the time read very much like FBI reports on American student protesters. The connections became even more interesting, though, when Jeremi reminded me that leaders in each of the countries he was looking at felt under siege from domestic critics. In the US, Western Europe and even the Soviet Union, it was discontented youth. In China, Mao was being challenged by his own party and governmental bureaucracy – hence the Cultural Revolution he himself led against them.
Each of these leaders came to realise that they could defuse domestic protests by settling international differences. For the Americans, this meant getting out of Vietnam. For the West Europeans, more exchanges across the Iron Curtain. For the Russians, getting access to Western trade and technology in order to raise living standards. And for Mao, who was on the verge of war with the Soviet Union in 1969, it meant opening relations with the United States.
It sounds like there was this idea of not wanting to fight a war on two fronts, as it were.
Exactly. Their internal positions were precarious, so they tried to stabilise their external relations.
Jeremi’s work doesn’t discredit the traditional view that détente was meant to lower the risks of nuclear war. What it does show, though, is that this was not the only explanation, and that it’s only by going beyond traditional approaches to diplomatic history that we can see what those explanations are. His book has reshaped our understanding of détente. And I, again, have had to rewrite my lectures.
Yes, but in a good way. This dissertation got started when Jeremi and I began talking one day about the absence of good histories of the détente era.
And for those who may not have come across this term, what does détente mean?
It’s the period of simultaneous improvement in Soviet-American and Sino-American relations during the late 1960s and early 1970s. So it’s associated with Nixon and Kissinger, but also Willy Brandt in Germany, Leonid Brezhnev in the USSR, and of course Mao in China because of Nixon’s extraordinary trip there in 1972.
Our first thought was that Jeremi should do a comparative history of these countries’ diplomacy at the time. But he, like many of our students, was interested in taking diplomatic history beyond the traditional diplomat, to look at cultural influences on the conduct of international relations. This meant focusing on what was happening inside each of the different countries.
So it is like the historiography of diplomacy?
It’s more like a reconsideration of what the history of diplomacy ought to include. For Jeremi, it was at first the protest movements that were such a prominent feature of the 1960s in the US: anti-nuclear, civil rights, women’s rights, and certainly anti-Vietnam War. I said fine, but what was happening at the time in Europe? In the Soviet Union? In China?
So this became an international history of protest movements, and Jeremi did find parallels. For example, KGB reports on Soviet youth at the time read very much like FBI reports on American student protesters. The connections became even more interesting, though, when Jeremi reminded me that leaders in each of the countries he was looking at felt under siege from domestic critics. In the US, Western Europe and even the Soviet Union, it was discontented youth. In China, Mao was being challenged by his own party and governmental bureaucracy – hence the Cultural Revolution he himself led against them.
Each of these leaders came to realise that they could defuse domestic protests by settling international differences. For the Americans, this meant getting out of Vietnam. For the West Europeans, more exchanges across the Iron Curtain. For the Russians, getting access to Western trade and technology in order to raise living standards. And for Mao, who was on the verge of war with the Soviet Union in 1969, it meant opening relations with the United States.
It sounds like there was this idea of not wanting to fight a war on two fronts, as it were.
Exactly. Their internal positions were precarious, so they tried to stabilise their external relations.
Jeremi’s work doesn’t discredit the traditional view that détente was meant to lower the risks of nuclear war. What it does show, though, is that this was not the only explanation, and that it’s only by going beyond traditional approaches to diplomatic history that we can see what those explanations are. His book has reshaped our understanding of détente. And I, again, have had to rewrite my lectures.
Your final book is Nexus: Strategic Communications and American Security in World War I by Jonathan Winkler.
Jonathan brought a different perspective to his dissertation: he was interested in how things work. Most historians focus on what people do, but people wouldn’t be able to do much – at least in the modern era – had things not worked. So how did they?
All of us knew, for example, that the telegraph had been invented in the 1840s and the first successful transatlantic cable had been laid in the 1860s. By the end of the 19th century, telegraphic cable communications extended throughout the world – the great European empires could hardly have been managed without them. How often, though, do histories of the period discuss this global network of cables, or the early systems of radio communications that were just beginning to supersede them?
That was the context for Jonathan’s dissertation, and his recently published book on American strategic communications during World War I. At the time the war broke out, in 1914, the British largely controlled the global cable network. Like the modern internet, it had been open to just about anyone in peacetime – wartime, though, was a different matter.
The British cut German cable communications, and intercepted the cable traffic of other countries. This significantly affected the US, which did not enter the war until 1917. So it confronted what we today might regard as a form of cyber warfare. Dealing with it became a major preoccupation, not just of the American military, but also of American banks and businesses attempting to conduct international activities.
We’ve long known that one German message the British intercepted – an offer to Mexico to return its ‘lost provinces’ of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California if it entered the war on the German side – played a major role in bringing about Wilson’s decision for war in April, 1917. What we haven’t known, though, is how the whole system of international cables worked during that war.
This was a major concern of American strategic planners at the time. It’s strange, therefore, that until Jonathan got to work on it, historians had almost completely neglected that issue. There’s often a mismatch between contemporary concerns and historical accounts. Jonathan’s achievement – a major one, I think – has been to reconnect them.
Jonathan brought a different perspective to his dissertation: he was interested in how things work. Most historians focus on what people do, but people wouldn’t be able to do much – at least in the modern era – had things not worked. So how did they?
All of us knew, for example, that the telegraph had been invented in the 1840s and the first successful transatlantic cable had been laid in the 1860s. By the end of the 19th century, telegraphic cable communications extended throughout the world – the great European empires could hardly have been managed without them. How often, though, do histories of the period discuss this global network of cables, or the early systems of radio communications that were just beginning to supersede them?
That was the context for Jonathan’s dissertation, and his recently published book on American strategic communications during World War I. At the time the war broke out, in 1914, the British largely controlled the global cable network. Like the modern internet, it had been open to just about anyone in peacetime – wartime, though, was a different matter.
The British cut German cable communications, and intercepted the cable traffic of other countries. This significantly affected the US, which did not enter the war until 1917. So it confronted what we today might regard as a form of cyber warfare. Dealing with it became a major preoccupation, not just of the American military, but also of American banks and businesses attempting to conduct international activities.
We’ve long known that one German message the British intercepted – an offer to Mexico to return its ‘lost provinces’ of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California if it entered the war on the German side – played a major role in bringing about Wilson’s decision for war in April, 1917. What we haven’t known, though, is how the whole system of international cables worked during that war.
This was a major concern of American strategic planners at the time. It’s strange, therefore, that until Jonathan got to work on it, historians had almost completely neglected that issue. There’s often a mismatch between contemporary concerns and historical accounts. Jonathan’s achievement – a major one, I think – has been to reconnect them.
Interview by
Daisy BanksBooks recommended:
[1] http://fivebooks.com/recommended/latin-america’s-cold-war-by-hal-brands
[2] http://fivebooks.com/recommended/sino-soviet-split-by-lorenz-m-lüthi
[3] http://fivebooks.com/recommended/wilsonian-moment-self-determination-and-international-origins-anticolonial-nationalism-b
[4] http://fivebooks.com/recommended/power-and-protest-global-revolution-and-rise-détente-by-jeremi-suri
[5] http://fivebooks.com/recommended/nexus-strategic-communications-and-american-security-world-war-i-by-jonathan-reed-winkle
The discerning reader's essential read.
© 2010 FiveBooks, an intelligent general reader
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)