Council On Foreign Relations Research Articles

Giving War a Chance

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the ultimate agenda-setting, strategic planning, and consensus-forming organization of the U.S. capitalist ruling class. The latest book to come out of the CFR orbit, Strategy of Denial (2021), thus provides an opportunity to concretely observe how the monopoly capitalist ruling class is preparing the people of the United States for what could be a catastrophic world war.

Corporate political power and US foreign policy, 1981–2002: the role of the policy-planning network

Recent empirical work has offered strong support for ‘biased pluralism’ and ‘economic elite’ accounts of political power in the United States, according a central role to ‘business interest groups’ as a mechanism through which corporate influence is exerted. Here, we propose an additional channel of influence for corporate interests: the ‘policy-planning network,’ consisting of corporate-dominated foundations, think tanks, and elite policy-discussion groups. To evaluate this assertion, we consider one key policy-discussion group, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). We first briefly review the origins of this organization and then review earlier findings on its influence. We then code CFR policy preferences on 295 foreign policy issues during the 1981–2002 period. In logistic regression analyses, we find that the preferences of more affluent citizens and the CFR were positive, statistically significant predictors of foreign policy outcomes while business interest group preferences were not. These findings are discussed with a consideration of the patterns of CFR ‘successes’ and ‘failures’ for the issues in our dataset. Although a full demonstration of a causal connection between corporate interests, the policy-planning network and policy outcomes requires further research, we conclude that this has been shown to be a plausible mechanism through which corporate interests are represented and that ‘biased pluralism’ researchers should include it in their future investigations.

Dancing On The Edge Of Oblivion

This article discusses the current precarious state of the US economy vis-à-vis the rise of China and the US proxy war in Ukraine. It discusses the problematic of a capitalist economy and the fundamental requirement of capital accumulation to avert and circumvent capitalist cyclical crises. It also discusses the methodology of accumulation, the law of value and the necessity of geographic hegemonic control in order to sustain homeostasis within a capitalist economy. Brought into the discussion is the effect such a dynamic imposes upon not only the hegemons (US, EU, Russia, and China) within the global economy but also the population and environment that such an unrelenting mission imposes upon the ecology and geopolitical state of affairs. In response to the endogenous exigencies of capital accumulation and the exogenous threats that such projects as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Russia’s interests as an Eastern European hegemon present, US foreign policy is designed as strategies (“strategy of containment” in reference to Russia after World War II and now the “strategy of denial” to contain the influence China presents as a world hegemon). Also, policy changes that are codified, such as the Bush Doctrine and the National Security Strategy of the United States of America provided legal rationalization and protection for the US to pursue practices that contravened international law i.e. the Geneva Conventions. China has emerged as a world hegemon and is ubiquitously engaging on the world stage especially in Eastern, Western and South Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, South and Central America, and Mexico. The country is becoming a threat to US capitalist interest with their “natural partnerships,” with their China–Arab States Cooperation Forum (CASCF), with their 1+2+3 Cooperation Frameworks, and with their 4 Action Plans within these countries. These Chinese initiatives as actions are seen to be destabilizing what the US calls “the balance of power” and “the rules-based order” within the global economy. The US is counteracting the threat to US capital accumulation with its neoliberal and neocon agenda, mostly formulated by the main actors within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who play an important role in formulating US foreign policy in the interest of US capital and the US military industrial complex. The US is implementing this with the postulates outlined in the 2021 book The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict by Eldridge A. Colby and his fellow cohorts within the CFR who formulated the theory and particulars of the strategy that the US is currently pursuing.

Transatlantic relations and public diplomacy: the Council on Foreign Relations, Jean Monnet, and post-WWII France and Europe

ABSTRACT The Second World War offered an excellent opportunity for some U.S. think tanks to influence foreign-policy-making processes and get involved in transatlantic diplomacy. This study seeks to demonstrate that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) challenged the stalemate between the U.S. and French authorities by gathering together U.S. experts and non-collaborationist French leaders. A first-hand reconstruction of this informal network is based on the unreleased Peace Aims Group’s records. This was a unique CFR exchange programme for European governments-in-exile’s representatives. In the first part, a general reconstruction of Council on Foreign Relations’ planning introduces an original assessment of the meetings with some prominent French intellectuals and politicians. It is argued that these conferences can be interpreted as rare examples of wartime public diplomacy. The second part discloses new historical evidence demonstrating the participation of Jean Monnet in a Peace Aims session. This discovery proves the existence of a long-term partnership between one of the key protagonists of the European integration process and the most authoritative foreign-policy think tank working for the Roosevelt administration. Overall, the analysis of Peace Aims Group’s off-the-record discussions sheds new light on the WWII transatlantic debate on postwar Europe and France.

Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations, and China policy during the Korean war, 1950–1953

In late 1950, with pervasive disharmony over the recognition of China, the Korean War, broader Asian policy, and British rearmament seriously threatening relations between Great Britain and the United States (USA), the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the British Royal Institute of International Affairs established a collaborative study group project. These two organizations, each the leading foreign policy think tank in its respective state, undertook a comprehensive examination of conflicts within their relationship, that ultimately, in early 1953, produced a book-length joint report. The issue of future policy towards China featured significantly in their collaborative discussions. These deliberations, which proceeded at the ambiguous interface where officialdom and private thinking overlapped, were undertaken by individuals brought together by two non-governmental organizations, at the prompting of the Rockefeller Foundation, which provided its funding. Neither side succeeded immediately in altering the official policies of the other, but the enterprise facilitated communication on politically sensitive issues at an ostensibly private level among British and American elites with close connections to government, thereby mitigating potentially corrosive tensions between the two states. In the longer run, on the American side, this enterprise may well have cleared the way intellectually for a series of influential CFR publications on China that appeared during the 1950s and 1960s and helped to prepare the ground for the reopening of relations with China during the 1970s.

Forging Foreign Policy: Organizational Identity and Knowledge Production

AbstractThe ideas and knowledge central to foreign policy are often produced within the context of organizations. How do organizations vet people and ideas for knowledge production? I use original data drawn from archives of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organization that brought together elites with an interest in foreign policy, to examine the production of post–World War II US foreign policy knowledge. Drawing on literature about how organizations evaluate people and ideas, I assess how the CFR staff selected different foreign policy topics for their Program on Studies from 1955 to 1972. Case studies and multinomial logistic regression provide two forms of evidence: The justifications used by the CFR Program on Studies staff to select ideas and the relationship between recommendations of proposers and idea selection. I compare the effect of positive recommendations from different sources to distinguish between prioritizing quality and prestige and organizational identity on the other. Staff used the identity of the organization as a group of elites with particular expertise as a basis for making everyday decisions regarding which foreign policy knowledge would be codified in the program. In this way, the organization occupied a central position in the production of knowledge. This suggests that scholars of evaluation should attend to organization-level features in addition to individual-level characteristics. I discuss the implications for organizations and intellectual production.

Revisiting the Council on Foreign Relations Study Group on International Theory, 1953–54: An Introduction to the Special Section

Across seven months in 1953 and 1954, the prestigious foreign policy think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) brought together a set of prominent scholars and practitioners of international affairs to discuss the topic of the theory of international relations. In this special section, a distinguished group of historians of international thought assess the significance of this recently-uncovered set of meetings. In this introduction, I situate the group within two literatures in IR and intellectual history, prompting increased dialogue between them. The first is an active debate among historians on the relationship between the state and the academy during the Cold War. To what extent was early theorizing about world politics shaped by the exigencies of geopolitical conflict? Given the subject matter, one would expect maximal impact in the CFR group record, but is that the case? The second literature the special section engages is a debate within IR specifically on the historical development of the discipline, and particularly the turn to theory after the Second World War. I conclude by previewing the contributions to the section.

Review of CFR College and University Educators Workshop

In April of each year, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) organizes the College and University Educators Workshop, designed to “focus on professional development to enhance the teaching of glob...

American Hegemony and International Theory at the Council on Foreign Relations, 1953–1954

This paper tells the story of a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) study group on the theory of international relations held in 1953–1954. The study group took place at a time of intense struggle over the nature and value of international relations as an academic and policy field, with theory a key stake. Funded by the Carnegie Corporation, organized by the CFR, and held at the same time as another theory conference at the Rockefeller Foundation, the group illustrates how central organizations of the American foreign policy establishment acted as the midwives of academic International Relations (IR), and IR theory in particular. Despite its ties to American hegemony, the group did not come together behind a theory designed to guide policy-makers in the exercise of American power. Offering a glimpse into a road to theory not taken, the group asserted the essential limits of all knowledge, and the need for a theoretically pluralist International Relations. The vision of theory it entertained was not thereby defined by powerful academic trends toward behavioralism, positivism, and systems-theory, nor by the Realpolitik-inspired ‘realist’ theory promoted by the Rockefeller group.

'Dangerous Circumstances': The Council on Foreign Relations Proposes a New Grand Strategy Towards China

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the think tank of monopoly-finance capital, Wall Street's think tank. It is also a membership organization: the ultimate networking, socializing, strategic-planning, and consensus-forming institution of the dominant sector of the U.S. capitalist class.… It is the world's most powerful private organization, the "high command" body of the U.S. plutocracy. The Council has an almost century-long history of forming study groups to plan the United States' overall "grand" strategic policies. It sets the agenda for debate, builds consensus among both the powerful and attentive publics, and then inserts its own network of people into public office to implement its favored doctrines in the real world. One of its latest efforts, a study group on U.S. grand strategy toward China, completed its work and issued a report in March 2015—approved by the CFR board of directors—entitled <em>Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China</em>.<p class="mrlink"><p class="mrpurchaselink"><a href="http://monthlyreview.org/index/volume-67-number-4" title="Vol. 67, No. 4: September 2015" target="_self">Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the <em>Monthly Review</em> website.</a></p>

A global health strategy to capitalize on proven-effective interventions for heart, lung, and blood diseases.

Global health research has historically been a high priority endeavor at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and currently represents one of the five priorities of the NIH Director.1 Recognizing that science and disease have no national borders, NIH has encouraged its Institutes, Centers, and Offices to work with the Fogarty International Center to support biomedical research and research training across the globe.2, 3 In this effort, many Institutes including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Cancer Institute, National Eye Institute and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and others, have established or expanded their global health programs. More recently, the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) produced a report calling for a more robust US engagement in global health, especially for non-communicable diseases (NCDs).4, 5 In the report, a task force commissioned by CFR analyzed the case for increased U.S. focus on NCDs by examining countries that received significant U.S. health assistance and found that the premature burden of death and disability in many of these countries was heavily NCD-related.5 The CFR finds two compelling global health interests that justify increasing the US engagement with NCDs. First, NCDs undermine the effectiveness of existing U.S. global health investments. Second, NCDs represent an opportunity for the U.S. government to build on existing U.S. global health platforms that can achieve sustainable reductions in premature death and disability that disproportionately affect the poor.

The Council on Foreign Relations and the Grand Area: Case Studies on the Origins of the IMF and the Vietnam War

This article examines the role of corporate elites within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in establishing the framework for the IMF and the rationale for the Vietnam War. Drawing on the CFR's WarPeace Study Groups, established in World War II as a conduit between corporate elites and the U.S. government, the author first analyzes the role of corporate power networks in grand area planning. He shows that such planning provided a framework for postwar foreign and economic policymaking. He then documents the relationship between corporate grand area planning and the creation of the IMF. The analysis concludes with an examination of the relationship between grand area planning and the Vietnam War.

Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War by Julie A. s> Mertus (review)

REVIEWS 577 Mertus, Julie A. Kosovo.How Mythsand TruthsStarted a War.University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, and London, I999. xxii + 378 pp. Photographs.Tables. Notes. Index. $55.00; $I9.95. Kosovo burston to the scene in I999, when the US militarybecame engaged in an air campaign under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). By that date,Julie Mertushad alreadybeen delving deeply into the dynamics of conflict in Kosovo between Serbsand ethnic Albanians. Her book, Kosovo: HowMythsandTruths Started a War,is a thought-provokingbut necessarilylimited effort to understandthe origin and direction of this longstandingand brutalconflict. Quoting Tzvetan Todorov on the need to examine 'more or less truths'in order to appreciate the complex social and psychological processesby which popular beliefs were formed and maintained in Kosovo after the death of Josip Broz Tito, Professor Mertus reviews several key incidents in the evolution of ethnic animus there. Specifically,she chronicles student demonstrationsin 198I, the alleged sexual wounding of a Serbian peasant in I985, the barracksshooting of four soldiersby a young ethnic Albanian soldier in the Yugoslav army, and the alleged poisoning of ethnic Albanian school children in I990. She illustrateswell the wildly divergent interpretationsof these incidents through interviewsof Serbs and ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The 'truths' relating to these events are the 'hidden transcripts', a term attributed to James Scott, which serve to intensify a conflict through story telling and re-telling. The irreconcilable nature of the beliefs detailed in the book reflecta depth of suspicion,fear and hatredof 'the other' (a sociological concept) which provided the foundation for armed conflict. Written in the styleof testimoniesof human rightsviolations, thisis the most compellingpart of herbook. Assertingthat the warwas ignited by relativelyrecent 'storytelling'(p. xxi), ProfessorMertusidentifiesboth a cynicaleffortbypoliticalelitesto orchestrate conflict and a popular predisposition to confrontation rooted in issues of identity and nationalism. She presents a convincing case for the inevitability of the warwhich resultedin I999. Indeed, if she is trulywriting,as she asserts, to help 'policymakers[... .] understandKosovo', then perhapsthe key insight she offerswould be the futilityof the currenteffortby the United Nations to impose a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo. The book in this respect is a testamentto the primacyof intolerance. Since NATO troops were deployed, nearly 8oo,ooo Kosovars who had been driven out of the province by Serb forces have returned. A spate of killingsand abuses against Serbs, Roma, and others ensued, resultingin the flight of upwardsof 200,000 persons, mostly Serbswho have gone to Serbia. Those Serbsinterviewedin the book who statedthat ethnic Albaniansdesired 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo proved to be right. Again, this is not surprising, given the passion and intensityof the animosityreportedbyJulie Mertus. As this book was being finished in i998, the situation in Kosovo was deteriorating and the prospect of widespread armed conflict emerged. This possibilitywas not unexpected. For severalyears, commentators and experts 578 SEER, 79, 3, 200 I hadpredictedconflictin Kosovo, andeffortsproliferatedbynon governmental organizations(NGOs) at conflictprevention. ProfessorMertusanalysesthese effortsandfindsthemwanting.While hercategorizationof theNGOs working in Kosovo is somewhat simplistic and a bit derisive ('war tourists', 'flag planters','seedplanters',and 'nearlyinvisiblehands'),some of the insightsshe offersresonate with the professionallytimid 'do no harm' school of developmental assistance identified by Mary Anderson. Mertus's exhortation to internationalNGOs to workconstructivelywith local counterpartsis as valid as it is elusivein a humanitarian'marketplace' where achieving a high profile and obtainingpublicityarenecessaryto securefunding.Lackof coordination, competition over turf,and inadequate accountabilityresult. ProfessorMertus's I998 postscriptshows that she favoursthe cause of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, and she urges NGOs to 'not pretend to be neutral', touching brieflyon a major debate among humanitariansthat itself is rifewith 'hidden transcripts'and relative'truths'. The recent electoraldefeatof Slobodan Milosevic at the time of thiswriting will be a key determinantof Kosovo's future,likelyunderminingthe quest of the ethnic Albanians for independence. But a return to normalcy will be difficultto achieve. Indeed, this book shows that the repatriationof Serbs to Kosovo could sparknew conflict. Council onForeign Relations ARTHUR C. HELTON New-York Webber, Stephen L. School,Reformand Societyin theNew Russia.Studies in Russianand EastEuropeanHistoryand Society. Macmillan,Basingstoke and London in association with the Centre for Russian and East EuropeanStudies,Universityof Birmingham,2000. XX+ 252 pp. Tables. Figure.Appendices. Notes. Bibliography...

School, Reform and Society in the New Russia by Stephen L. s> Webber (review)

578 SEER, 79, 3, 200 I hadpredictedconflictin Kosovo, andeffortsproliferatedbynon governmental organizations(NGOs) at conflictprevention. ProfessorMertusanalysesthese effortsandfindsthemwanting.While hercategorizationof theNGOs working in Kosovo is somewhat simplistic and a bit derisive ('war tourists', 'flag planters','seedplanters',and 'nearlyinvisiblehands'),some of the insightsshe offersresonate with the professionallytimid 'do no harm' school of developmental assistance identified by Mary Anderson. Mertus's exhortation to internationalNGOs to workconstructivelywith local counterpartsis as valid as it is elusivein a humanitarian'marketplace' where achieving a high profile and obtainingpublicityarenecessaryto securefunding.Lackof coordination, competition over turf,and inadequate accountabilityresult. ProfessorMertus's I998 postscriptshows that she favoursthe cause of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, and she urges NGOs to 'not pretend to be neutral', touching brieflyon a major debate among humanitariansthat itself is rifewith 'hidden transcripts'and relative'truths'. The recent electoraldefeatof Slobodan Milosevic at the time of thiswriting will be a key determinantof Kosovo's future,likelyunderminingthe quest of the ethnic Albanians for independence. But a return to normalcy will be difficultto achieve. Indeed, this book shows that the repatriationof Serbs to Kosovo could sparknew conflict. Council onForeign Relations ARTHUR C. HELTON New-York Webber, Stephen L. School,Reformand Societyin theNew Russia.Studies in Russianand EastEuropeanHistoryand Society. Macmillan,Basingstoke and London in association with the Centre for Russian and East EuropeanStudies,Universityof Birmingham,2000. XX+ 252 pp. Tables. Figure.Appendices. Notes. Bibliography.Indexes. f42.50. IT is important that despite all the disturbing political and economic developments in the heart of what was once the Soviet Union, educational changes takingplace in the Russian Federationreceive proper attention from youngerscholarswho, in additionto genuine andlastinginterestin the matter, find enough time and determination to conduct proper field research into exactly what changes are taking place in Russian education at the present time. This taskis, however, not easy, even for an investigatorwho possessesa perfect knowledge of Russian and adequate resources to conduct numerous penetrating interviews and discussions with Russian teachers, educational administrators,lecturers, officials,journalists, parents, students and pupils, and is able to visit several cities and many educational establishments of differentkinds.Fortunately,the authorof thisbook knowswell what questions must be askedand answered, searchesfor many differentviews and opinions and can critically assess and evaluate the available evidence. That may, however, be confusing, contradictory and incompatible. The complexity of the scene may, indeed, 'suggest a near chaos defying analysis' (p. i6). Formulatingvalid conclusions presents, therefore, a real challenge and one mustkeep this in mind when readingthe book. REVIEWS 579 The volume consists of three parts of very different length. The first scrutinizesthe aims of the reform effort;the second, constituting half of the whole book, examines in detail the patterns of change in the school system; the third,ratherbriefconsideringthe importance of the theme, deals with the relationshipbetween Russia'sschools and its society. The 'Introduction'identifiesimportantmethodological considerations:the approach to the study;the significanceof both macro- and micro-levelissues; the statisticalsources;the characterand the scale of interviewsand questionnaires ;the issuesconnected with access to educational establishments. The author visited over forty of the latter, at differentlevels of education, including research institutions as well as the FederalMinistry of Education. He also made indirectcontactswith over fiftyeducationalestablishments. Part One examines the need for change in Russian schools, describes the gradual evolution of the Reform Agenda going back to the I98os; the importantworkof teacherinnovatorsand the influence of progressivewriters such as Vasili Sukhomlinskii, Shalva Amonashvili, V. F. Shatalov and the famous VNIK (Vremennyi nauchno-issledovatel'skii kollektiv). The last section of this part constitutes a more detailed scrutiny of the reform programme of Eduard Dneprov and the I992 Law on Education. The importance of the individualityandpersonalityofthe childreceives,inevitably,properattention, but to identifyAnton Makarenkoas one of its promoters,next to Lev Tolstoi, Ushinskii,Sukhomlinskiiand Amonashvili(p. 42) mustbe questioned. Part Two provides an evaluation of the implementation of the reform proposals. The author stressesthat reforming education is a difficultmatter even in stable and prosperous countries, where, as a matter of course the introduction of reform is followed by its effective implementation. In today's Russia, 'the scenarioof a huge agenda callingfor radicalchange in all aspects of schools' organization, set against the backdrop of social upheaval and financialcrisis,appearsto offerratherbleakprospects'(p. 52). The cumulative effectof the real impact of frequentministerialchanges;the difficultiesarising from the inability...

“Mobilizing America for An Internationalist Foreign Policy”: The Role of the Council on Foreign Relations

This article attempts to examine the processes by which the United States was transformed from an “isolationist” power to an “internationalist” one in the World War II period, focusing on the role of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an influential and controversial foreign policy organization.It is clear, however, that the internationalist-isolationist dichotomy is too simplistic; it has been demonstrated, notably by corporatist historians (on whom more below), to be at odds with the historical record. It is also of some importance, however, to take seriously the fact that the participants in the seismic foreign policy shift that did occur - even if there were interconnections and continuities between the two eras - categorized the past as “isolationist” and the future as “internationalist.” Their reading of the past - or at least of the interwar years - that they had all lived was that it was blighted by isolationism, even if the Hoover and other administrations had encouraged private bankers and others to engage in various international efforts. Their hopes, or rather strategies, for the future were pinned on globalism as the guiding star of U.S. foreign policy, but only after the spectre of isolationism - as an organized force, an intellectual current, even, perhaps, as a prejudice or as common sense - had been exorcized. “Isolationism” may not withstand the test of history, but it was real because the main political actors of the day believed it to be so, and their political strategies were constructed on such beliefs. See the following studies of the CFR: Lawrence Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977); Robert D. Schulzinger, The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: History of the Council on Foreign Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984); G. William Domhoff, The Power Elite and the State (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990); Inderjeet Parmar, “The Issue of State Power: The Council on Foreign Relations as a Case Study,” Journal of American Studies, (1995); for an extreme right-wing view, see Phoebe Courtney, Nixon and the CFR (New Orleans: Free Men Speak, 1971). In focusing on an organization, I certainly imply that the transformation process was not driven purely by the logic of world events - Nazi domination of Europe or Japanese aggression - but also by concerted efforts by people dedicated to a set of principles and ideas about America's place in the world – ideas which challenged the isolationist status quo, sought to undermine it and to ultimately replace it with an internationalist consensus.

The Issue of State Power: The Council on Foreign Relations as a Case Study

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long been recognised as one of the most influential of modern American institutions. Indeed, for some scholars at least, the relationship between the Council and the federal government has been a troubling one. A private group that is exclusive and unrepresentative in membership, funded by large corporations and foundations, highly secretive about its operations, and ensconced in the centres of state power, raises serious issues of principle for a democracy. At its crudest, the question is who “controls” whom, the state or the unofficial group? Allowing for a more complex relationship between an official policy elite and outside advisors, just what are the points of convergence or divergence between these “internal” and “external” bureaucrats, as Chadwick F. Alger has called them? Such issues draw attention to the nature of the state itself, and, whatever the proper role of the CFR in the American system of government, its existence provides an opportunity to examine a number of major ideas about power and the state.

Reviews of Books

Reviews of Books

The Middle East Studies Association of North America

The twenty-fourth annual meeting of the Middle East Studies Associationof North America (MESA) was held between November 10-13, 1990 in SanAntonio, Texas. Hosted by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies of theUniversity of Texas at Austin and supported by different academicorganizations, MESA featued a number of distinguished speakers, internationaland domestic, who spoke on a wide variety of topics.One topic was the Gulf crisis and the AmWIsraeli conflict. The plenarysession of MESA , entitled "The Current Crisis in the Gulf: Thoughts andReflections," featured three main speakers: Richard Murphy of the Councilon Foreign Relations, Rashid Khalidi of the University of Chicago, and Kennethstein of hmy University. Though this sessim did not discuss ways of solvingthe Gulf crisis, it was the general feeling of the audience that a linkage doesexist between the Gulf situation and the Arab/Israeli conflict, and that acomprehensive solution in which the U.S. should play a major part is urgentlyneeded.The Conference tackled another current complication in the Middle Eastduring its seminar entitled The Impact of the Possible Mass Immigrationof Soviet Jews to Israel d the occupied Terrieories." Walid Khalidi of HarvardUniversity expressed the feeling of perhaps millions of Palestinians whenhe said that this mass immigration of Soviet Jews is the second most dangeroussituation affecting the Palestinians after their expulsion from their land in1948. Israel has by now received 200,000 Soviet immigrants since the summerof 1990, and their number is expected to reach two million by the year 1995.Muhammad Hallaj of the Palestine Research and Educatimal Center, locatedin Fairfax, Virginia, discussed the impact of the Soviet Jews' mass immigrationon Palestinian demography and economy in the occupied territories, and showedhow Israeli politicians, especially the right-wing ones, are more agreeablethan before to transferring a large number of Palestinians to Arab countries,especially to Jordan. As is well known, since 1967 a number of influentialIsraeli politicians have called on successive Israeli governments to expelPalestinians en masse as a means of keeping the demographic balance infavor of the Jewish population. It should be noted, however, that transfer,albeit on a minor scale, has in effect taken place, especially since the startof the Palestinian intifada in December of 1987. More than 200 Palestinianleaders, many of whom belong to the Islamic movement HAMAS, have beendeported to Lebanon. This shows the resolve of the Israeli government ingetting rid of the vital elements of Palestinian society ...

Book Reviews and Notices : The United States in World Affairs, 1947-1948. By JOHN C. CAMPBELL AND THE RESEARCH STAFF OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. (New York and London: Harper and Brothers. 1948. Pp. xx, 572. $5.00. )

Book Reviews and Notices : The United States in World Affairs, 1947-1948. By JOHN C. CAMPBELL AND THE RESEARCH STAFF OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. (New York and London: Harper and Brothers. 1948. Pp. xx, 572. $5.00. )