The Nostoi of Two Acclaimed Immigrant Picturebook Creators

Perspectives on <i>The Soviet Union and the Horn of Africa during the Cold War</i>

Cold Wars: Asia, the Middle East, Europe

Correspondence: The Profitability of Primacy

Peripheral Nerve: Health and Medicine in Cold War Latin America

Preface The authors 1. Introduction Michael J. Hogan 2. An end to which Cold War? Walter LaFeber 3. The Cold War, the Long Peace, and the future John Lewis Gaddis 4. Quiet cataclysm: some afterthoughts on World War II John Mueller 5. Some lessons from the Cold War Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr 6. Nuclear Weapons and European security during the Cold War Samuel F. Wells, Jr 7. Victory in the postwar era: despite the Cold War or because of it? Alexei Filitov 8. The wicked witch of the West is gone. Long live the wicked witch of the East Bruce Cumings 9. The end and the beginning Ronald Steel 10. A balance sheet: Lippmann, Kennan and the Cold War Richard J. Barnet 11. Why did the Cold War arise, and why did it end? Raymond L. Garthoff 12. A view from below Noam Chomsky 13. The end of the Cold War in the Middle East Nikki R. Keddie 14. The end of the Cold War in the Near East: what it means for historians and policy planners Bruce R. Kuniholm 15. After the Cold War: the United States, Germany, and European security Hermann-Josef Rupieper 16. The end of the Cold War: a sceptical view Denise Artaud 17. The end of the Cold War, the new role for Europe and the decline of the United States Geir Lundestad 18. The fading of the Cold War and the demystification of twentieth century issues Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird 19. The US government, a legacy of the Cold War Ernest R. May 20. Foreign policy, partisan politics and the end of the Cold War Michael J. Hogan 21. Beyond polarity in space and time David Reynolds 22. A usable past for the future Robert Jervis.

Science and Really Existing Socialism in Maoist China

22 Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol. XXXIV, No. 3, Spring 2011 India-U.S. Relations: Expectations, Reality and the Future Aneek Chatterjee* With the conclusion of American President Barak Obama’s ‘historic’ visit to India, the first American President to visit India in his first term, post Cold War bilateral relationship has assumed newer dimensions. India, with sustained economic growth for nearly two decades, is poised to play a big role in world politics. In this context India’s relations with the U.S., the only super power in the present world order is crucial. From the American perspective, an ‘emerging’ India with market and military potentials is significant for American business and strategic calculations. There is little doubt that during the post Cold War period, India-U.S. relationship has attained the level of maturity and strength that was unimaginable during the Cold War period. Official visits of three consecutive American Presidents to India since 2000 are a few among many instances of this mature relationship during the post Cold War phase. But has the relationship moved on the expected route after the end of the Cold War. The time is appropriate for a clinical appraisal of India-U.S. relations two decades after the end of the Cold War. The present article examines the post Cold War ‘Expectations’ and ‘Reality’ in Indo-U.S. relations and proposes a future course of action that may help to strengthen the bilateral relationship of two major actors in international politics today. It begins with Expectations in bilateral relationship between people in both countries. The article emanates from a theoretical interest to review current bilateral relations in the perspective of relations immediately after the end of the cold War in 1991, with a view to examine whether these *Aneek Chatterjee is Associate Professor of Political Science, Presidency (College) University, Kolkata, India. Currently, Fulbright-Nehru Visiting Professor, Center for South Asian Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, U.S.A. 23 1 For instance, almost all Annual Reports published by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, from 1990-91 to 1995-96 projected very bright India-U.S. relations after the Cold War. See in this context, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Annual Report 1990-91; Annual Report 1991-92; Annual Report 1992-93; Annual Report 199394 ; Annual Report 1994-95; and Annual Report 1995-96. For similar projections in American official documents see, House of Representatives, 103rd Congress, 1994. Round Table on South Asia : Testimony Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives – 103rd Congress, Second Session, Washington, D.C. : U.S. Govt. Printing Press. Also see, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, 1994. The Clinton Administration’s Policy Toward South Asia : Hearing, Before the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, First Session, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Press. For non-official documents see, Singh, Jasjit. 1992. Indo-US Relations in Changing World. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers. Also see, Frankel, Francine R. ‘Indo-US Relations: The Future is Now’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 19, no.4, pp. 129-49; also, Harrison, Selig S. ‘South Asia and the United States: A Chance for a Fresh Start’, Current History, March 1992, pp. 97-105. 2 See Ripley, Randall B. and James M. Lindsay, ed. 1977, U.S. Foreign Policy After the Cold War. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh; also, Jentleson, Bruce W. 2000. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. expectations were realized, and what could be done to augment relations in future. The Expectations After a generally distant relationship during the Cold War, the post Cold War world order provided many new opportunities to both India and the U.S. to set their relationship on a fresh course. A listing of these opportunities will help to focus on the expectations for a better relationship during the post Cold War era: (1) the end of the Cold War; (2) the disintegration of the Soviet Union; (3) the rise of the U.S. as the only surviving super power; (4) the need for adjusting and reshaping foreign policies in a new...

Reviewed by: The Other Cold War Suzy Kim The Other Cold War. By Heonik Kwon. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. 232 pp. $50.00 (cloth). Reading Heonik Kwon's The Other Cold War during a recent trip to Korea made some of the points painfully obvious. For those in places like Korea or Vietnam—two ethnographic sites covered in the book—Kwon's point that the Cold War was not cold at all for the vast majority of people outside North America and Europe is palpable, both in the visual landscape of war memorials and mass graves and in the increasingly less visible generation that still remembers the experience of war, not to mention the subsequent generations that were affected by the bipolar allegiances required throughout the Cold War. Glancing at the title of the book, a South Korean muttered, "The other Cold War? [End Page 484] More like the still Cold War . . . ." Indeed, the Cold War continues on the Korean peninsula, divided as it still is two decades after the so-called end of the Cold War. Kwon, thus, appropriately opens the book with the observation that Cold War historiography today has "an open-ended beginning and a closed ending" (p. 1), noting that the question of the origins of the Cold War enables multiple perspectives about who is responsible whereas the significance placed on the year 1989 as the definitive victory of liberal capitalism over communism forecloses such multiple assessments of its impact. Accordingly, the questions driving the book are "When we say the cold war is over, whose cold war and which dimension of the cold war do we refer to? Did the cold war end the same way everywhere, or was the 'struggle for the world' the same everywhere?" (p. 6). Kwon's answer, in short, is that there was never a conflict called the Cold War in the singular because this period encompassed brutal civil wars and vicious forms of political violence in much of the postcolonial world. Challenging the dominant conceptualization of the Cold War as a time of "long peace" maintained through the balance of power between the two superpowers, Kwon highlights the "balance of terror" using Bruce Cumings's terminology (p. 17) that turned the Cold War hot in so many places, leading to some forty million human casualties throughout the world. Rather than concluding that the Cold War ended with the disintegration of the Soviet bloc, privileging states as historical actors, Kwon frames the end of the Cold War as a "participatory, ethnographic question" (p. 8) that involves shifting ideologies and cultures, affecting local communities, family relations, and individual identities. Using ethnographic examples from Jeju Island in South Korea, Danang in Vietnam, and Bali in Indonesia, Kwon's anthropological perspective shows just how Eurocentric the very terminology of the Cold War truly is by focusing on the memories that still haunt those who survived, the ghosts that still walk among the living, and the commemorative practices that attempt to bridge the bipolar history of the Cold War. Thus, he writes about the "decomposition" (using Stephen Whitfield's term) of the Cold War rather than its "end," caught in the "unsettling situation in which the lived reality is not really free from the immediate past and has not reintegrated the past into the time present as a past history" (p. 33). Such analysis, however, is not new, as the book readily admits. In my view, Kwon's most important contribution is his critique of postcolonial theorists for their failure to see the violence wrecked by the bipolarity of the Cold War mapped onto the process of decolonization. Indeed, Kwon questions the possibility of decolonization during the [End Page 485] American Century, highlighting the singularity of American orientalism in the twentieth century in its use of the language of plurality and equality to compete effectively against the Soviet Union both in ideological terms and to gain allies in practical terms. He incisively historicizes the Cold War roots of concepts such as cultural tolerance and pluralism that advocate cultural diversity while relegating political difference as morally irreconcilable, moving the "domain of essentialism from the cultural to the ideological" (p. 79). Theorizing American global...

Occupiers, Allies, and the Long Postwar Adam R. Seipp (bio) Susan L. Carruthers. The Good Occupation: American Soldiers and the Hazards of Peace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. 386 pp. Notes, index. $29.95. Steven P. Remy. The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017. x + 342 pp. Maps, notes, index. $29.95. In 1954, the German journalist and Nazi-era exile Norbert Mühlen wrote an essay for the American Academy of Political and Social Science in which he sardonically described the evolution of America's postwar occupation armies from triumphant victors to "an uneasy and implausible mixture of conquistador and social worker." The apparent moral and strategic clarity of defeating German and Japan had, by the early 1950s, devolved into the complex trade-offs of political and economic reconstruction. The fundamental messiness of this transition makes it particularly fascinating for historians. Susan Carruthers and Steven Remy have written compelling accounts that highlight the frustrations, dead ends, and difficult choices that Americans faced during the decade after World War II. The two books under review here reflect important trends in the historiography of America's role in the world after 1945. First, there has been a tremendous interest in the political, cultural, and military aspects of postwar occupation. This has stemmed, not unreasonably, from more than fifteen years of American engagement with occupation and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global military realignment after 2001. Given the life cycle of academic books, it seems appropriate that the past few years have seen a number of excellent titles that situate the American military presence overseas during the Cold War within the context of international, domestic, and regional politics. This effort has been remarkably interdisciplinary, with important contributions by historians, sociologists, and political scientists. The sociologist Amy Austin Holmes's recent book on American "protection regimes" and domestic politics in Germany and Turkey stands out as an excellent example of where comparative studies can take us. Likewise, Maria Höhn and Seungsook Moon's edited [End Page 300] volume, "Over There": Living with the US Military Empire from World War Two to the Present (2010) highlights the global dimensions of America's Cold War and post-Cold War development of overseas bases. Second, the period immediately following the end of the Second World War has experienced a substantial resurgence of scholarly interest. The postwar period is no longer defined by the growing tensions of the early Cold War and is now widely seen as a dynamic historical period on its own terms. As historians move away from a view of these years that privileges the behavior and attitudes of the superpowers, a much more nuanced and multi-polar story emerges. One example of many is the florescence of scholarly treatments of the return of German and Japanese soldiers from imprisonment after the end of the war. Frank Biess (2009) and Yoshikuni Igarashi (2016) have both written outstanding studies of the domestic contexts of returning soldiers, a parallel made even more explicit by the fact that both books are titled Homecomings. Historians have not lost sight of the critical role of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, but are much more willing to look for less teleological narratives. Newer literature on the postwar period emphasizes the plural visions of reconstruction and renewal, the contingencies of national and sub-national politics, and the long shadow of the war years. Tony Judt's magisterial 2005 study of Europe after World War II has helped to inspire a more expansive view of the entire notion of a "postwar," one that in the case of Europe may reasonably extend to 1989, if not beyond. At the beginning of Susan Carruthers's highly readable and engaging study, she takes up these challenges directly. "While we've come to know a good deal about how citizens of the former Axis powers 'embraced defeat,' we know considerably less about the awkward and hesitant way in which Americans—in and out of uniform—embraced supremacy in the postwar world" (p. 14). Readers familiar with Carruthers's earlier work on American anxieties about captivity in the early Cold War will recognize the threads that...

£24.50 and $40.00, £12.75 and $20.00 softback Paul Robert Magocsi Ukraine: A Historical Atlas 1986 University of Toronto Press Toronto 62

THE NOTED DIPLOMATIC HISTORIAN JOHN LEWIS GADDIS HAS OBSERVED that writing in the midst of struggle can lead to lack of scholarly detachment and asymmetrical approach. Cold war scholars, according to Gaddis, reflected the contemporaneous debates rather than viewing them with the detachment that comes after the end of era; they viewed events from the inside instead of from the outside. Late in the long-running cold war, many scholars did not know how to get perspective on foreign policy because they had never experienced anything but the cold war. Gaddis also argued that writing about the cold war tended to give side disproportionate attention and neglected both the interaction between the two sides and the role of ideas in the confrontation. The result, Gaddis concluded, was an abnormal way of writing history itself With the end of the cold war, however, he expects the historiography to revert to more normal history because historians will treat the cold war as a discrete episode.... within the stream of time.(1) Cold war historiography is not unique. Before the end of the cold war, civil fights scholarship, like much of contemporary history, shared some characteristics with histories of the cold war. Writing in the midst of the ongoing struggles for racial equality, historians have often lacked detachment because of their profound and justifiable moral commitment to the aims of the civil fights movement. In addition, as Gaddis suggested about cold war experts, few scholars of the black freedom struggle have had any personal experience of world apart from the movement; individuals born since 1940 can scarcely recall period before the movement gained widespread publicity. Historians of the movement have also generally taken asymmetrical approach to the campaign for equal rights. They have tended to emphasize one side of the struggle, the movement side, and to neglect their professional obligation to understand the other side, the segregationist opposition. To explain the most profound change in southern history, historians have resorted to telling the story from vantage point within the movement; only rarely have they sought detached view or broader perspective that would necessarily encompass all of the South to explain the momentous changes in racial relations. They have written about the movement essentially from the perspective of the movement without fully considering the larger history of the South during the entire era. As result, important parts of the story remain untold.(2) Unlike their cold war colleagues, however, civil rights scholars have not yet developed clear schools of interpretation or consistently clashing interpretations; nothing comparable to the orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionist interpretations of the cold war yet exists in the writings on the movement.(3) Research that has covered topics for the first time has had no earlier interpretations to revise or refute. Writing on the movement has, nonetheless, involved implicit disagreement on number of issues. Scholars have variously suggested, for example, that the movement actually began in the 1930s with the New Deal, in 1954 with the case of Brown v. Board of Education, or even in 1960 with the sit-ins. By the focus of their works, historians have also placed different emphases on the roles of the federal government, major protest organizations, and prominent leaders, and they have stressed the efficacy of different strategies and tactics--violent or non-violent action, litigation or mass protest, national or grassroots efforts. Students of the movement have also reached conflicting conclusions about the results of the civil rights movement. Seldom have the disagreements among scholars become explicit in their publications; more commonly they are implied or have to be inferred by their more experienced readers. Having yet to develop thorough, critical, and radical interpretations of the civil rights struggle, historians have tended to share sympathetic attitude toward the quest for civil rights They also lack the advantage recently gained by diplomatic historians with the end of the cold war, and they cannot, and do not want to, declare the straggle to be over because racial discord has not ended and racial justice has not been achieved. …

REVIEWS 779 reiterate their approach which centres on the historical periodization of opposition duringthe variousstagesof the Communist system'sdevelopment. Each period in their view -resistance to the establishmentof Communist rule, social protest and political non-conformismin the early post-totalitarian period, human rights and 'Second Society' dissidence during state socialist stagnation and the formation of politicized counter-elites during Communism 's collapse had core features as well as a mixture of common systemicand nationally differentiatedtraits.They argue that the explanatory value of social movement theory is not just restrictedto Poland's case and the collapse of Communism elsewhere.For them it can be read much further back and is relevantbloc-wide 'in the explanationof dissidenceand opposition under conditions of authoritarianrule' (p. 26I). Overall, the volume works quite well as a middle level type of study. It is moderately successfulin identifyingand delimiting the subjectin the light of the wide range of divergentbloc wide national experiences. This symposium fallsbetween many theoreticaland empiricalstoolsbut it is partiallysuccessful in attemptingto pioneer a synthesisof an importanttopic. Department ofPolitics GEORGE SANFORD University ofBristol Bisley, Nick. 7he Endof theColdWarandtheCauses of SovietCollapse. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstokeand New York, 2004. viii + 209 pp. Appendix. Notes. Bibliography.Index. ?45.00. Herrmann, Richard K. and Lebow, Richard N. (eds). Endingthe ColdWar: Interpretations, Causation, andtheStudy ofInternational Relations. New Visions in Security. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstokeand New York, 2004. viii + 248 pp. Notes. Indexes. ?5?.??. CONTRARY to what you might think from the titles of these two books, Nick Bisley'sis the one more concerned with InternationalRelations theory. Bisley attemptsto show the validity of historicalsociology in understandingthe end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet state. He extends the ideas of Michael Mann and Theda Skocpol to place particularstresson the changing nature of state power over time. As he says, most commentators were too ready to accept the statusquo during the Cold War and failed to appreciate the extent of change in the Soviet Union before its final collapsein December I99I. Bisley also makes the case for the inter-relationshipbetween the domestic and international.In particular,Bisley argues that the Cold War helped legitimize the Soviet state. The conflict with the West justified the one-party dictatorship,the militarizationof Soviet society, and the deprivationssuffered by the Soviet people. As Gorbachev introduced new political thinking in foreign policy and began to abandon the Cold War, the Soviet state was simultaneouslyde-legitimized.Thus, the decline of the Soviet Union did not lead to the end of the Cold War, as many suggest the two processeswere, in fact, too inextricablyinterlinkedfor that. The general argumentpresented here is convincing, and Nick Bisleyis rightto suggestthat commentatorshave paid too little attention to the impact of the internationalon the nature of 780 SEER, 84, 4, 2006 the Soviet state. The relative importance of the domestic and international, however, remains rather elusive in this account. Perhaps it is sufficient to acknowledge the inter-relationshipand leave it at that. Inevitably,in a book of this kind, the authoruses broad brushstrokesin his coverage of both the Soviet Union and the Cold War. On occasion, however, I felt this went a little too far. For example, in attempting to argue that the Soviet Union was a highly militarized society (with which I would not disagree ), Bisley writes that the country was at war for forty-nine out of the seventy-fouryears of its existence (p.62). But in citing the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War and Afghanistan,one was left wondering whether the US (or any other Western state, for that matter)had a record over a similar period that was much better. I also felt that his broader claims for historical sociology might have been strongerwithin a more comparative framework. Not only would the US make an interesting case study, but I was also left wondering if Communist China would support or undermine the central arguments here. In the period of detente in the I970s, China replaced the United States as Moscow's enemy number one. China allied itself with the US, and from 1978 proved that a Marxist-Leniniststate could reform itself sufficientlyto become the fastestgrowing economy in the world. Communist China survivedthe end of the Cold War well enough...

Lessons of the Cold War

The Cold War: A World History

Editor's Note