Talking Peace: Exploring Pathos of Warfare in Andrew Motion's Peace Talks (original) (raw)
Related papers
Hiroshima, al-Nakba: Markers of New Hegemonies
2009
I would like to begin on a personal note that explains why I was eager to take the opportunity to speak about Hiroshima and Al-Nakba together, in Hiroshima (December 2008). In August 1945 when the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred, I had just left school and was about to enter university. The suffering and destruction caused by this first use of thermonuclear bombing horrified me. I was at an age when feelings are deep, and when lasting political dispositions are often taken. The memory of the bombings stayed with me both as permanent horror, and as a prod towards political action. The reactions of the British public to the bombings were also alienating: they expressed either indifference to, or satisfaction in the destruction caused by the A-bomb. The name given to the Hiroshima bomb——‘Little Boy’ ——also struck me as particularly obscene, and as signifier of a culture that I did not want to belong to. Surely this moment of shock drew my life away from my home country, B...
The events of September 11 at first seemed to change the Bush administration's attitude towards multilateralism. But this now appears to have been a temporary shift of emphasis and once again the administration is pursuing an essentially unilateralist foreign policy. This article looks at the impact of September 11 on US foreign policy, focusing specifically on the implications the events have for US power and for the structure of world politics. The article contextualizes US foreign policy by discussing the debates over unipolarity that followed the end of the cold war. It then looks at the interpretations offered by Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington and Benjamin Barber. It then discusses the implications of September 11, before looking at the nature of current US foreign policy, the relative power, both 'soft' and 'hard', of the US and the prospects for future world order. The article concludes that world orders are always in the interests of some and that current unilateralist US policies are unlikely to create a more humane world order and might even be against US long-term interests.
The question of whether states pursue absolute or relative gains in international politics has divided neo-realism and neo-liberalism for quite some time now. Thus whereas neo-realists contend that states seek comparative advantages relative to other actors, neo-liberal scholars argue that they are primarily interested in the accomplishment of absolute individual gains. In applying social-constructivist ideas, however, this paper will attempt to demonstrate that such a preference for relative or absolute gains is not naturally predetermined, but inextricably linked to the continual 're-construction' of states' national identities and interests. In other words, it is political actors' own conception and definition of international relations which ultimately determines their concern for absolute or relative gains. By analyzing the decision-making process of the Truman Administration for using nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, this case study will show that American leaders were altogether much more preoccupied with achieving absolute rather than relative gains. Such absolute considerations were simultaneously influenced by the pressures of an anarchic self-help system as well as by specific domestic imperatives and the personal views of individual policy-makers on how to best handle international problems and exigencies. More concretely, American decision-makers believed that only the realization of absolute gains such as swift socio-economic recovery and the creation of a more stable and peaceful security environment would ultimately ensure their country's long-term international position in both absolute and relative terms.
Britain, the United Nations and the Iranian Crisis of 1946
2013
4 Abstract: This article discusses the Iranian crisis from British perspectives in the period from July 1945 to May 1946. The Iranian crisis of 1946 was an Anglo-Soviet dispute over the Near East. It was the first international crisis referred to the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) for investigation. The three world powers, namely the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, were deeply involved in this crisis. It was significant not only in shaping the future of world politics at the time; it also determined the fate and prestige of the United Nations in the context of the early phase of the Cold War. This was because the Iranian crisis reflected an open split between the three permanent members of the Security Council, rather than unity in settling international disputes. It is contended that the Iranian crisis of 1946 forced Britain to regard the UN not more than a political instrument to achieve their ultimate aim as a key player in international polit...
The Failure of America's Post-Cold War Foreign Policy: From the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Guinea
2006
In the course of a country's history, pivotal points, or critical junctures, mark fundamental changes in that country's foreign policy. 1 For the United States, several events in the twentieth century proved to be major, pivotal shifts for its foreign policy. The entrance of the United States into World War I ended American international isolationism, and its victory in World War II propelled it reluctantly into the role of global leader against the communist threat. When the communist threat ceased to exist in 1990, America once again experienced another pivotal point in its foreign policy. The focus of US foreign policy during the Cold War was based on a clear "us vs. them" dimension, with "them" clearly as the communists and their ilk. Containment of communism became the cornerstone of every administration's foreign policy during the Cold War. With the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of "them," a new attempt was initiated to redirect American foreign policy toward a new objective. President George H. W. Bush made the first attempt at redirecting America's foreign policy by trying to create a multilateral framework of security and cooperation under the auspices of the United Nations. Bush's "New World Order" brought together a United Nations mandate and a coalition of thirtyfour states to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait after Iraq's 1990 invasion. With a total force numbering between 500,000-600,000, the US-led coalition ousted Iraqi forces, driving them back across the Iraq-Kuwait border. The "New World Order," however, was short-lived. Its demise was due in part to the United States' inability to act effectively outside of its own national interests, as was demonstrated in Somalia shortly after the Persian Gulf War. The United Nations also contributed to the death of the "New World Order" by showing complete ineptitude in handling the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Hence, the multilateral approach that drove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait fell apart in the wake of two disastrous humanitarian interventions in Somalia and Rwanda.
The Origins and Evolution of US Policy Towards Peace Operations
International Peacekeeping, 2008
This article contends that the William Clinton and George W. Bush administrations experienced similar transformations in their respective policies towards UN peace operations and nation-building. Although they began from nearly opposite perspectives, both came to remarkably similar conclusions about the value of peace operations, UN-led or otherwise, as tools for US foreign policy. Initial positions, driven in part by ideological concerns, gave way to more pragmatism about how the United States would support UN peace operations, reinforced by experiences with Congress and at the UN. A defining feature of this pragmatism was a deep reluctance to contribute significant numbers of troops to UN-commanded operations, even as both administrations supported increases in the number and scale of UN missions.