L’atome global : cultures et crises en comparaison

Atom global. Kulturen und Krisen im Vergleich [L’atome global. Cultures et crises en comparaison]

Berlin

25 novembre 2011

Date limite d’inscription : 20 novembre 2011

 

Die Atomkraft diente nie allein dem Zweck, elektrische Energie zu gewinnen. Die zivile Nutzung atomarer Kräfte resultierte aus deren militärischer Indienstnahme. Die Vernichtung der Erde durch die Atombombe und das Aufblühen einer technischen Moderne, gespeist aus einer nie versiegenden Energiequelle, waren die zwei Seiten der nuklearen Medaille. Die Atomkraft war Vernichtungsdrohung und Heilsversprechen zugleich.

Die zivile Atomkraft durchlief nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg eine globale Karriere. Die ersten Reaktoren entstanden in den Vereinigten Staaten, der Sowjetunion und Großbritannien. Frankreich, Japan und andere Nationen folgten. Die atomare Kraft eroberte ihren Platz somit in höchst unterschiedlichen Gesellschaften. Hier setzt der Workshop »Atom global« an. Der Sonderforschungsbereich »Repräsentationen«, der außereuropäische Kompetenzen der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin zusammenführt, nimmt Fukushima zum Anlass für einen Kulturvergleich aus historischer Perspektive.

Der Workshop »Atom global« fragt nach den globalen Geschichten des atomaren Zeitalters: Lassen sich kulturelle Unterschiede im Umgang mit der Atomkraft ausmachen oder überwiegen angesichts der Globalität atomarer Technologie die Gemeinsamkeiten?

Workshop (Ort: Humboldt-Universität)

13 Uhr: Panel 1 – Kulturen: Leben mit der Atomkraft

  • Elisabeth Röhrlich (Wien): Friedliche Atome im Kalten Krieg: Das globale Programm der IAEA
  • Stefan Guth (Bern): Vergangene Zukunft: Die russische Atomstadt Schewtschenko, 1959-2016
  • Sibylle Marti (Zürich): Strahlenangst in der Schweiz
  • Gesine Foljanty-Jost (Halle): Soziale Bewegungen in Japan
  • Tim Warneke (Heidelberg): Die Selbstzerstörung der Menschheit: Gesellschaftsanalyse und -kritik der deutschen Friedensbewegung der 1980er-Jahre

Kommentar: Hartmut Kaelble (Berlin)

16 Uhr: Panel 2 – Krisen: Der gesellschaftliche Umgang mit der Katastrophe

  • Susanne Schregel (Darmstadt): Nuklearfreie Zonen
  • Karena Kalmbach (Florenz): Frankreich nach Tschernobyl
  • Melanie Arndt (Potsdam): Politik und Gesellschaft nach Tschernobyl
  • Steffi Richter (Leipzig): Fukushima als transnationales Ereignis

Kommentar: Jochen Roose (Berlin)

19 Uhr – Öffentliche Abendveranstaltung (Ort: Tazcafé)

« Atomare Katastrophen und Gesellschaft » Vortrag und Gesprächsrunde mit Adolf Muschg und Sebastian Pflugbeil
Kontakt:
Daniel Hedinger
HU, SFB 640
daniel.hedinger@geschichte.hu-berlin.de
Anmeldung für den Workshop bis 20.11.2011 an Daniel Hedinger

Homepage: http://www.sfb-repraesentationen.de/veranstaltungen/tagungen-und-workshops/atom-global-kulturen-und-krisen-im-vergleich

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Sonderforschungsbereich « Repräsentationen sozialer Ordnungen im Wandel »; Matthias Braun / Nadin Heé (HU Berlin); Daniel Hedinger (Freiburg)

Ort : Berlin, Humboldt-Universität (Mohrenstraße 40-41, Aquarium) & Tazcafé (taz.die tageszeitung, Rudi-Dutschke-Straße 23)

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

« Trust, but Verify ». Confidence and Distrust from Détente to the End of the Cold War

« Trust, but Verify ». Confidence and Distrust from Détente to the End of the Cold War

7-9 November 2011

Washington DC

Scientific project: see the call for papers: http://guerre-froide.hypotheses.org/534

 

Monday, November 7

 

Location: German Historical Institute, Washington, DC

4:00 pm – Welcome at the GHI

4:15-5:30 pm – PANEL 1: The Personal Factor

Chair: Andreas Daum (SUNY, Buffalo)

  • Patrick Vaughan (Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland): Zbigniew Brzezinski as Mediator between the US, Poland, and Solidarity in the 1980s Soviet-Chinese Dimension
  • J. Simon Rofe (University of Leicester): Trust between Adversaries and Allies: President George H.W. Bush, Trust and the End of the Cold War

5:30-6:00 pm – Coffee Break

6:00-7:15 pm – Keynote Address

Ute Frevert (Max Planck Institute for Human Development): Emotions in History

7:15-9:00 pm – Reception at the GHI

Tuesday, November 8

 

Location: Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

9:15-10:30 am – Keynote Address

Deborah Welch Larson (UCLA International Institute): Trust and Mistrust during the Cold War

10:30-11:00 am – Coffee Break

11:00-12:00 am – PANEL 2: Framing Trust: The Blocs at the Negotiation Table

Chair: Reinhild Kreis (University of Augsburg)

  • Michael Cotey Morgan (US Naval War College): Confidence and Distrust at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in urope (CSCE)
  • Sarah Snyder (University College London): Reagan, Trust, and Human Rights: The Vienna CSCE Review Meeting, 1986-1989

12:00-2:00 pm – Lunch Break

2:00-3:00 pm – PANEL 3: Inside the Blocs: East and West I

Chair: Sonya Michel (Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC)

  • Jens Gieseke (Centre for Contemporary History, Potsdam): Whom Did East Germans Trust? Popular Opinion on Threats of War, Confrontation and Détente in the GDR, 1968-89
  • Jens Boysen (GHI Warsaw): « Brothers in Arms », but not really: East Germany and People’s Poland between Mutual Dependency and Mutual Distrust, 1975-1990

3:00-3:30 pm – Coffee Break

3:30-4:30 pm – PANEL 4: Inside the Blocs: East and West II

Chair: Nancy Gallagher (University of Maryland)

  • Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol (University of Glasgow): Institutionalizing Trust? Regular Summitry (G7s and European Councils) from the Mid-1970s until the Late 1980s
  • Noel Bonhomme (Université Paris-Sorbonne): Summitry and (Mis)trust: The Case of the G7 Summits, 1975-90

4:30-5:00 pm – Coffee Break

5:00-6:30 pm – PANEL 5: On the sidelines or in the middle? Small and neutral states

Chair: Christian Ostermann (Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC)

  • Effie G. H. Pedaliu (University of the West of England-Bristol): ‘Footnotes’ as an Expression of Distrust? The US and the NATO ‘Flanks’ in the Last Two Decades of the Cold War
  • Aryo Makko (Stockholm University & Graduate Institute Geneva): A Neutral Trust Regime? Sweden and the Cold War, 1969-1991
  • Rinna Elina Kullaa (University of Jyväskylä, Finland): Foreign Policy of Neutralism as a Trust Building Mechanism: Finland, the Soviet Union and the United States, 1961-1975

 

Wednesday, November 9

 

Location: Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

9:00-10:30 am – PANEL 6: Implementation and Verification

Chair: Jeffrey Herf (University of Maryland)

  • Arvid Schors (University of Freiburg, Germany): The History of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), 1969-1979
  • Laura Considine, Nicholas Wheeler (Aberystwyth University): Trust and Verification, 1985-1991
  • Joseph P. Harahan (U.S. Department of Defense): Building Confidence and Trust between the United States and the Soviet Union: Implementing the INF Treaty, 1988 -1991

10:30-11:00 am – Coffee Break

11:00-12:00 am – Concluding Discussion

Chair: Martin Klimke (GHI, Washington, DC)

Conveners: Martin Klimke (German Historical Institute, Washington, DC); Reinhild Kreis (History Department, University of Augsburg); Sonya Michel (United States Studies, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC); Christian Ostermann (Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC

For more information, please contact Dr. Martin Klimke (klimke@ghi-dc.org)

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Films sur la Perestroïka

Mois du film documentaire 2011 : Les années Perestroïka

Paris

3-10 novembre 2011

 

Cette année, la BDIC a sélectionné cinq films sur des thèmes représentatifs de l’Union soviétique entre 1985 et 1991. Ces réalisations produites en France, Suisse et URSS constituent une introduction sa prochaine exposition «URSS : Fin de parti(e). Les années Perestroïka», présentée au Musée d’histoire contemporaine-BDIC (Invalides) à compter du 2 décembre 2011.

Jeudi 3 novembre, 18h30 – Société de Géographie (184 boulevard Saint-Germain, 75007 Paris)

Out of the present, d’Andreï UJICA

Russie, 1995, 90 min. V.O. russe, ST français

En mai 1991, les cosmonautes de la mission soviéto-britannique Ozon sont envoyés sur la station orbitale MIR. L’un d’eux passe près de dix mois à bord. Parti de l’URSS, il reviendra en Russie…

Invités : Jean-Pierre Haigneré, astronaute, Agence spatiale européenne. Isabelle Sourbès-Verger, géographe, Centre Alexandre Koyré, CNRS-EHESS. Modération : Rosa Olmos, BDIC

Mardi 8 novembre 19h00 – Auditorium de l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris (5 rue Lobau, 75004 Paris)

Est-il facile d’être jeune? de Youris PODNIEKS

URSS (Lettonie), 1986; 57 min. V.O. lettone, ST français

La jeunesse lettone filmée par Youris Podnieks au début de la Perestroïka. Le réalisateur dresse le portrait d’une nouvelle génération en pleine évolution, au cœur des changements de la société soviétique.

Invités : Kristian Feigelson, sociologue, Université de Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle (IRCAV). Anna Zaytseva, sociologue, Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen (CERCEC/CNRS). Modération : Claire Niemkoff, BDIC

Mercredi 9 novembre 2011 – Auditorium de l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris (5 rue Lobau, 75004 Paris)

Le sacrifice, de Wladimir TCHERTKOFF

Suisse, 2003, 24 min. V.O. russe, ST français

Des centaines de milliers d’hommes ont travaillé à la décontamination du site de Tchernobyl et de ses environs; ils ont participé à la construction improvisée du sarcophage recouvrant le réacteur en fusion pour éviter une catastrophe majeure. Le film présente les témoignages de ces «liquidateurs» et de leurs familles qui endossent seules les conséquences de ce sacrifice humain.

Controverses nucléaires, de Wladimir TCHERTKOFF

Suisse, 2004, 51 min. V.O. russe, ST français

Le film retrace la confrontation entre scientifiques de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé, qui mènent des recherches sur les effets sanitaires des accidents nucléaires, et les chercheurs de l’Agence Internationale de l’Énergie Atomique : le conflit d’intérêt entre les deux agences internationales entrave la reconnaissance des analyses des répercussions de la catastrophe de Tchernobyl.

Invités : Wladimir Tchertkoff, réalisateur et Marie-Hélène Mandrillon, historienne, EHESS. Modération : Dominique Bouchery, BDIC

Jeudi 10 novembre 2011 – Auditorium de l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris (5 rue Lobau, 75004 Paris)

Moscou, trois jours en août de Iossif PASTERNAK

France, 1991, 57 min. V.O. russe, ST français

Le 19 août 1991, un groupe de putschistes, dirigé par Ianaiev, tente de prendre le pouvoir en URSS. Face à eux, le tout nouveau président de la Fédération de Russie, Boris Eltsine, et son premier ministre, Ivan Silaev, sont réfugiés au Parlement et défendus par la population civile. La parole est aux Moscovites.

Invité : Jean Robert Raviot, historien, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, commissaire de l’exposition. Modération : Irina Tsvetkov, BDIC

 

Contact : rosa.olmos@bdic.fr

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Writing Pugwash histories

Writing Pugwash Histories. From Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Kabul and Gaza

Vienne, 10-12 mai 2012

Date limite : 31 octobre 2011

For nuclear physicists, chemists and technicians, the hundreds of thousands of civilian victims of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cast a painfully sharp light on the military and biopolitical consequences of their work during the Second World War. In the nuclear arms race between the Cold War superpowers, many nuclear scientists felt able, justified and indeed called upon to campaign against the continued development and deployment of nuclear weapons.  Those scientists included some who had themselves helped to develop the atom bomb.

Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

Among the various national and transnational groupings working against nuclear war, the Pugwash movement stands out. Even today, it evokes the July 1955 manifesto that was drafted by Bertrand Russell and co-signed by Albert Einstein just before his death. The movement took its name from the location of its first meeting, in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia in summer 1957. So far, 59 « Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs » and numerous workshops have been held in various regions of the world. From the beginning, the movement aimed to bring together eminent scientists, scholars, politicians, diplomats and government advisers across the hostile frontiers of the Cold War. The « Pugwashites » wanted to go beyond the exchange of diplomatic notes or military force, instead using the shared language of science to evaluate the risks of nuclear armament, develop solutions to regional conflicts and exert influence on national governments with the goal of promoting world peace.

The themes addressed by the Pugwash conferences have diversified to reflect the changing problems facing international politics – climate change; crises of energy, food and natural resources. Since the movement was founded its membership structure has also changed, as have the scientific disciplines and professions of its members, its objectives, methods and modes of cooperation, and its role within the debates of global politics.

Pugwash movement: History or histories

To date, the history of the Pugwash movement has been told largely through chronological accounts, memoirs and partial studies of national Pugwash groups. Writing a comprehensive history of the movement is perhaps not possible at the present time. On the one hand, the informal structure of the Pugwash movement means it is known only to a relatively small audience, and has attracted little attention from historians even since the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the movement and its secretary general, Joseph Rotblat, in 1995. On the other, although the Pugwash movement has an international presence, it is embedded in very different scientific, social and political configurations in different countries and regions. As a result, it seems neither possible nor desirable to write a single, unified narrative of the movement’s peace-policy successes and global political significance.

Instead, what we need are multi-faceted histories written from a range of distinct national and regional perspectives. Only in this way will historians be able to fully understand the distinctive character of the Pugwash movement in the long term, its survival through time and across such profound political changes and its contributions to international dialogue.  From its inception, Pugwash oscillated between an elitist claim to universal scientific expertise, links with transnational movements for peace and against nuclear weapons, and integration into the local political establishments. It therefore offers an outstanding opportunity to consider national and international connections between science and politics, which became increasingly complex during the second half of the twentieth century. Analysing these interrelations from a transnational perspective necessitates a large, cooperative network of historians, able to take a range of different thematic and regional approaches.

Objectives of the workshop

The wide and diverse literature on the Cold War by political historians, historians of science and historians of diplomacy has hitherto yielded only a small number of informative studies of the Pugwash movement (these include Evangelista 1999; Kubbig 2004; Butcher 2005; Braun 2007).  The proposed workshop intends to form a springboard for a more broadly based engagement with the topic. Our objectives include:

  • to exchange information regarding existing research and ongoing projects relating to the history of the Pugwash movement in various different countries,
  • using completed, current and planned research projects as a point of entry, to discuss history of science and political history dimensions of the Pugwash movement,
  • to examine methodological approaches, the state of documentation and questions around archival sources relevant to Pugwash.

Who is invited?

We invite proposals from scholars in the history of science, social and political history, and related disciplines. You should either have worked directly on the history of the Pugwash movement or addressed it in the course of other research. Proposals related to ongoing PhD or postdoctoral projects are particularly welcome.

Please submit a one-page proposal and brief CV in English to office_sachse.zeitgeschichte@univie.ac.at by 31 October, 2011. We will notify selected participants in November 2011. Papers of no more than 3,500 words must be submitted, in English, by 31 March, 2012.

Funding is still pending. We hope to be able to cover travel costs for up to ten participants (max. EUR 400 each).

Contacts:

Prof. Dr. Carola Sachse (carola.sachse@univie.ac.at)
Institut für Zeitgeschichte
Universität Wien
Spitalgasse 2, Hof 1
A-1090 Vienna

Dr. Silke Fengler (silke.fengler@univie.ac.at)
Institut für Zeitgeschichte
Universität Wien
Spitalgasse 2, Hof 1
A-1090 Vienna

Dr. Alison Kraft (alison.kraft@nottingham.ac.uk)
ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society (Egenis)
University of Exeter
Byrne House, St. Germans Road
Exeter
EX4 4PJ

Office:

Martina Schmied (office_sachse.zeitgeschichte@univie.ac.at)
Institut für Zeitgeschichte
Universität Wien
Spitalgasse 2, Hof 1
A-1090 Vienna

Sponsored by: Institute for Contemporary History, University of Vienna, and Arbeitskreis Historische Friedensforschung (AKHF)

Conveners: Silke Fengler (University of Vienna), Alison Kraft (Egenis, University of Exeter), Holger Nehring (University of Sheffield, AKHF), and Carola Sachse (University of Vienna)

Keynote speaker: Matthew Evangelista (Cornell University)

In cooperation with: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (contact: Sandra Ionno Butcher), and Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW, contact: Reiner Braun)

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Nuclear Proliferation International History Project

Nuclear Proliferation International History Project

Ce projet, lancé début 2011 et cousin au CWIHP (Cold War International History Project), est conçu comme un réseau d’institutions et de chercheurs travaillant sur l’histoire internationale des questions nucléaires. Il est animé par Christian Ostermann, Leopoldo Nuti et Timothy McDonnell. Comme le CWIHP, il publiera des documents (archives en ligne, des études, et organisera des conférences, des colloques, des écoles d’été. Le projet est soutenu par la fondation Carnegie.

Pour en savoir plus : http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=643248

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Le SPD, les Verts et le mouvement de la paix contre le réarmement

SPD, Grüne und die Friedensbewegung gegen die Nachrüstung» [Le SPD, les Verts et le mouvement de la paix contre le réarmement [dans les années 1980]]

18-19 mars 2011

Berlin

Der Beschluss zur Stationierung von Pershing II-Raketen in der Bundesrepublik – innerhalb der Zeitgeschichtschreibung als eine zweite Phase des Kalten Krieges benannt – führte zu einer der größten Massenbewegung in ihrer Geschichte. Die daraus folgende Nachrüstungsdebatte bescherte der Bundesrepublik ein politisches Erdbeben. Die Entscheidung der damaligen Bundesregierung, Nuklearraketen auf deutschem Boden zu stationieren, rief die größte Friedensbewegung seit ihrem Bestehen ins Leben. Mit Massendemonstrationen und lokal und überregional vernetzten Initiativen wurde eine Mobilisierung bisher nicht gekannten Ausmaßes initiiert, die gesellschaftlich eine große Wirkungsbreite entfaltete.

Die politisch Verantwortlichen reagierten mit Unverständnis. In der SPD, die mit Helmut Schmidt den Bundeskanzler stellte, brach der Konflikt zwischen Befürwortern und Gegnern offen aus. Das Unvermögen der etablierten Parteien, angemessen zu reagieren, führte nicht nur zur Stärkung der Bewegung, sondern auch zu Gründung der Grünen, in ihrem Selbstverständnis eine Antiparteienpartei.  In vier Sektionen sollen die politischen und sozialen Ursachen, Verläufe und Folgen vorgestellt und untersucht werden.

1. Mit dem Scheitern des SALT II Abkommens und der Ankündigung der Stationierung von SS 20 Raketen und der Reaktion des Westens darauf kam die Entspannungspolitik zum Stillstand. Wie entwickelte sich das Verhältnis der Großmächte zueinander? Wie sahen die strategischen Planungen der Supermächte aus und welche Auswirkungen und Erwartungen hatten sie auf die Bundesrepublik?

2. Auf der politischen Bühne geriet die Entspannungspolitik in Bedrängnis, die DDR interpretierte den Nachrüstungsbeschluss als einen Rückfall in den Kalten Krieg. Zugleich verschärften sich die Auseinandersetzungen in der Sozialdemokratie durch das Bekenntnis führender Parteileute wie Erhard Eppler zur Friedensbewegung. Schmidt geriet in der eigenen Partei in die Kritik, als auf dem Parteitag 1982 ein Drittel der Delegierten sich gegen die Nachrüstung aussprachen. Das Panel fragt sowohl nach den Motiven und Interessen, die die Handlungen der politisch Verantwortlichen, allen voran Bundeskanzler Schmidt, beeinflussten, wie auch den alternativen Sicherheitskonzepten, die die Kritiker und Vertreter der Friedensbewegung und -forschung vorlegten.

3. Die Massenbewegung, die sich aus dem Protest entwickelte, veränderte die Bundesrepublik entscheidend. Sie führte zu einer Dynamisierung der Friedenspolitik als einer Alternative zur Stabilitäts- und Sicherheitspolitik der etablierten Parteien und veränderte die politische Kultur der Bundesrepublik nachhaltig.

4. Die daraus folgende Milieubildung und deren verschiedenen Ausformungen bereiteten für die Grünen den Boden, um zu einer politischen Bewegung in den nächsten Jahren zu werden. Die Herausbildung einer politischen Bewegung dieses Ausmaßes und des daraus entstehende Spannungsverhältnis zur verfassten Politik lassen nach einem erweiterten Politikbegriff fragen. Zugleich kam es zu Interferenzen zwischen verschiedenen Milieus und Bewegungen (Frauenfriedensbewegung) und zu einer Professionalisierung und Etab-lierung der Friedensforschung.

Das Kolloquium bringt Promovierende, Postdoktoranden und Zeitzeug/innen zusammen und dient dem Austausch über Forschungsansätze und Ergebnisse zur Friedensbewegung im Kontext der sog. Nachrüstung.

Freitag, 18. März 2011

15:00 Uhr – Begrüßung: Christoph Becker-Schaum, Marianne Zepp (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung)

15:15 Uhr – Sektion 1: Von der Krise der Entspannungspolitik zum Nachrüstungsbeschluss

Chair: Tim Geiger (Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Berlin)

  • Oliver Bange (Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt, Potsdam) : «Die Entwicklung der Waffensysteme in den 1970er Jahren, der Wandel des Kriegsbildes und die Dynamisierung der Ost-West Beziehungen»
  • Julia Metger (Freie Universität Berlin) : «Moskauer Auslandskorrespondenten im Akteursdreieck zwischen deutscher Botschaft und sowjetischem Außenministerium»

17:15 – Pause

17:30 – Abendessen

19.00 – Öffentlicher Vortrag mit Diskussion und anschließendem Empfang Gewerkschafterinnen und Frieden

  • Sibylle Plogstedt (Journalistin, Bonn)
  • Moderation: Martin Klimke (GHI Washington)

Samstag, 19. März 2011


9.00 – Sektion 2: Auswirkungen in der SPD und die Entstehung eines Gegenexpertentums

Chair: Marianne Zepp (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin)

  • Mit Otfried Nassauer (BITS, Berlin) und Wolfgang Biermann (SPD, Oslo)
  • Jan Hansen (Humboldt-Universität Berlin) : «’Die Priorität bleibt der Friede’. SPD und Nachrüstung, 1979-1983»

11.00 Kaffeepause

11.15 – Sektion 3: Grüne

Chair: Philipp Gassert (GETK, Universität Augsburg)

  • Martin Klimke (GHI Washington) : «Sonne statt Reagan: Die Wahlkampfstrategie der Grünen bei der Bundestagswahl 1983»
  • Christoph Becker-Schaum (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin) : «Die Grünen und die unabhängigen Friedensgruppen»

12.45-13:30 – Mittagessen

13:30 – Sektion 4: Friedensbewegung

Chair: Christoph Becker-Schaum (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin)

  • Alexander Holmig (Universität Augsburg) : «Sicherheitspolitik von unten. Gewaltfreie Blockaden gegen nukleare Mittel-streckenraketen in Mutlangen 1983-1987»
  • Achim Schmitz (Trainer für praxisorientierte Friedensforschung, Stuttgart) : «Training in gewaltfreier Aktion»
  • Corinna Hauswedell (Conflict Analysis and Dialogue (CoAD), Bonn) : «Friedensbewegung und Friedenswissenschaft»

15.30 – Abschlussrunde

16:00 – Ausklang

Contact :

Christoph Becker-Schaum
Archiv Grünes Gedächtnis der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
Eldenaer Straße 35, 10247 Berlin
(030) 28534265
(030) 285345265
becker-schaum@boell.de

Lieu : Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Eldenaer Straße 35, 10247 Berlin

Date limite pour les inscriptions : 15.03.2011

Site Web : http://www.boell.de/archiv (Internetseite des Archivs Grünes Gedächtnis der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung)

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

« Trust, but Verify » – Confidence and Distrust from Détente to the End of the Cold War

« Trust, but Verify » – Confidence and Distrust from Détente to the End of the Cold War

7-9 novembre 2011, Washington (États-Unis)

Date limite de réponse : 1er mars 2011

U.S. President Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, « Nations do not mistrust each other because they are armed. They are armed because they mistrust each other. » To transcend this quagmire, Reagan employed the strategy « Trust, but Verify, » one of his signature phrases, during the second half of the Cold War. Presenting this maxim as a translation of a Russian proverb, Reagan predominantly used it when describing U.S.-Soviet relations – for example, when the two countries signed the groundbreaking INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty in December 1987.

The landmark INF treaty, accompanied by reservations among U.S. and Soviet allies about the increasingly cordial relations between the former opponents, exemplifies the significance of trust and trustworthiness in international relations during the Cold War. Recent historiography of this conflict has begun to explore the crucial role of emotions such as fear and insecurity, which permeated both foreign policy strategy and large segments of society. It has not yet, however, explicitly made trust either an independent analytical category or an object of historical analysis, despite its wide application in the fields of sociology, economics, media studies, and political science.

Yet although Cold War angst (e.g., of nuclear annihilation) shaped the relationship between the ideological blocs, the final two decades of the era – from the period of détente starting in the late 1960s to the gradual rapprochement between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s – saw Cold War policy grow more flexible and diverse as each side sought to escape the orthodoxy of mutual assured destruction and deterrence. Because these transformations affected relations between the two superpowers and caused uncertainties within both blocs, the second half of the Cold War was characterized by a complex mixture of fear and trust, which manifested itself, among other things, in confidence-building and risk-taking, both on an international and domestic level.

As a construct, trust is transient and can be actively built or destroyed. It is the result of a process of risk assessment based on interactions and perceptions, strategic self-interest, shared values, and goodwill, and can be regarded as a form of social and political capital. Trust regimes, symbolic actions, and the effective staging of trust, trustworthiness, distrust, and other such qualities influence attention, rationality, and decision-making. Thus, they are major factors in international relations. The idea of trust or distrust is, furthermore, interrelated with concepts of the past and future. Past experiences color estimates of someone’s trustworthiness and affect expectations of future developments. They also shape historical and ideological notions about countries and their interactions with one another, for example, ideas about so-called archenemies or special relationships in international relations.

This conference will use the categories of trust and distrust to explore and reevaluate the final two decades of the Cold War, beginning in the late 1960s. The temporal dimension will receive special emphasis, because trust among competing powers is limited and reversible and can be monitored or reinforced through checks and regulations. Within this framework, the conference seeks to analyze the conditions for the presence or absence of trust in the following areas:

  • the dynamics of the relationship between the two superpowers, that is, their foreign policy and diplomatic relations on various levels (official, cultural, and public) as well as their military and security objectives and negotiation strategies;
  • the dynamics within each ideological bloc, i.e., the internal cohesion of NATO and the Warsaw Pact as well as the loyalty of their members vis-à-vis their respective ideological hegemons (including extra-bloc interactions with non-aligned countries, ideas of transcending the bloc system, and tensions such as the Sino-Soviet split), alliance policies, ideological agendas, and the eventual transcendence of the bipolar system after the Cold War;
  • the dynamics inside the individual countries concerning domestic politics and society, debates about national leadership, the ideological enemy, and the legitimacy of the Cold War order as well as their representations, for example, in media and (popular) culture.

The conference will examine the dynamic entanglements between the international and domestic spheres, thus following an « intermestic » approach, and draw on an integrated perspective of political and cultural history. More specifically, it seeks to extend the recent historiographical emphasis on the role of emotions in contemporary politics, history, and international relations

Possible themes that we would like to pursue from this perspective in this conference include:

  • building versus the destruction of trust
  • maintaining and managing trust (trust regimes)
  • possessing trustworthiness and a propensity to trust
  • structures that foster trust and reliability (checks, regulations, consequences, and so on)
  • predictability, community, and cooperation
  • reciprocation of trust
  • trust as social and political capital
  • public trust
  • narratives and memories of trust and betrayal
  • representations of trust in (popular) culture
  • linguistic, performative, and symbolic expressions of trust, trustworthiness, and distrust (e.g., in diplomatic rituals and performances such as official visits, signing ceremonies, « private » meetings, and joint media activities)
  • interpersonal (mis-)trust, loyalty, and disappointment (personal political friendships and enmities among decision makers on all levels)
  • perceptions and imaginings of trustworthiness (e.g. with regard to specific policies, political leaders or allies, technological or military developments, or abstract notions of progress and modernity)

Focusing on trust as an analytical category, researchers from all disciplines are therefore invited to discuss the Cold War from this perspective for the period from the late 1960s to 1990/91. Particular emphasis will be laid on the intersection of diplomatic, political, cultural, and media history.

Please send a paper proposal of no more than 500 words and a brief CV via e-mail to Bärbel Thomas (b.thomas@ghi-dc.org).

The deadline for submission is March 1, 2011. Participants will be notified by the end of March.

The conference, held in English, will focus on the discussion of 5,000-6,000-words, pre-circulated papers (due September 1, 2011).

Expenses for travel (economy class) and accommodation will be covered, though you may defray organizing costs by soliciting funds from your home institution.

Convenors: Martin Klimke (German Historical Institute, Washington, DC); Reinhild Kreis (History Department, University of Augsburg); Sonya Michel (United States Studies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC); Christian Ostermann (Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC), Washington, DC

For more information, please contact Dr. Martin Klimke, German Historical Institute(1607 New Hampshire Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009-2562, USA) :  klimke@ghi-dc.org

Pour en savoir plus : http://www.ghi-dc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1138&Itemid=1004

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Accidental Armageddons: The Nuclear Crisis and the Culture of the Second Cold War, 1975-1989

« Accidental Armageddons: The Nuclear Crisis and the Culture of the Second Cold War, 1975-1989 »

4-6 november 2010, New York

Conference at the German Historical Institute. Co-sponsored by the New School for Social Research/Eugene Lang College, New York University

Conveners: Eckart Conze (University of Marburg), Martin Klimke (GHI Washington), Jeremy Varon (New School for Social Research, New York City)

Conferences are not public. If you are interested in participating, please contact the GHI convener: klimke@ghi-dc.org

The conference « Accidental Armagedons » seeks to explore the political and cultural discourse on nuclear weapons and atomic energy during the Second Cold War. While welcoming myriad approaches, the conference has several core goals:

  1. To explore diplomatic, political, and strategic debates surrounding nuclear armaments and the doctrines governing their possible use. « Traditional » actors, such as the political, diplomatic, and military elites, certainly shaped these debates, but « anti-establishment » forces such as civil society organizations and activist groups also played an important role within them.
  2. To merge « establishment » perspectives with an analyses of protest cultures by looking at non-state actors, grassroots activists, civil society organizations, and artists.
  3. To transcend the traditional East-West divide of the Cold War by examining both sides of the Iron Curtain, the views and activities of those in « non-aligned » countries, and the cooperation of policy makers, organizations, activists, scientists, and intellectuals across borders.
  4. To understand how « ecological » protests against the civilian use of nuclear energy and activism against nuclear weapons converged in a new, comprehensive anti-nuclear movement. That movement, from diverse vantage points, articulated a new and profound critique of the postwar, industrial, and technological modernity that had emerged after 1945.
  5. To establish how nuclear anxiety and fears of environmental apocalypse facilitated the rise of global consciousness and conceptions of global citizenship.

The conference will place special emphasis on the cultural and trans-/international dimensions of nuclear discourse.

Pour en savoir plus : http://www.ghi-dc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1024&Itemid=915

Compte-rendu du colloque (en anglais) : http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=3455

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

After Hiroshima: The United States, Race and Nuclear Weapons in Asia, 1945-1965

After Hiroshima: The United States, Race and Nuclear Weapons in Asia, 1945-1965

Londres, 27 novembre 2010

Professor Jones will examine how the legacies of the atomic bombing of Japan in 1945, the subsequent record of US nuclear testing in the Pacific, and the projected use of nuclear weapons against China, generated tensions in the relations between the United States and various Asian states and societies. One area of discord that will be featured is how, during an era marked by racial segregation and discrimination in the United States, the atomic bomb was often pictured as a ‘white man’s weapon’ which Western states were callously prepared to use against Asians, and how such perceptions came to influence the views of American policymakers on the consequences of any further nuclear use in the region.

Speakers: Matthew Jones is Chair in American Foreign Relations at the University of Nottingham, and an associate of the Cold War Studies Project; Arne Hofmann is the Head of the CWSP, and Masters Tutor in the International History Department at LSE.

Lieu : London School of Economics, salle B 212

Pour en savoir plus : http://www2.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/events/events/2010/101125Jones.aspx

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Unthinking the Imaginary War. Intellectual Reflections of the Nuclear Age, 1945-1990

Unthinking the Imaginary War. Intellectual Reflections of the Nuclear Age, 1945-1990

Londres, 4-6 novembre 2010

International Conference, jointly organised by the Centre for Peace History, University of Sheffield, and the Arbeitskreis für Historische Friedensforschung, in collaboration with the German Historical Institute London and the German Historical Institute Rome. It aims to bring together historians, philosophers and scholars from cultural studies who are interested in intellectual, political and artistic reflections of the ‘imaginary’ reality of a nuclear war in the period from 1945 to 1990. It will discuss how the atomic bomb and its imaginary impact has served as a signifier in political, intellectual and artistic discourses, and how philosophers, writers, artists, but also defence intellectuals tried to think and unthink the political and strategic realities of the nuclear age.

Programme détaillé

Lieu : German Historical Institute London, 17 Bloomsbury Square, London WC1A 2NJ

Renseignements : http://www.ghil.ac.uk

Ajout du 27 décembre 2010 : un compte-rendu H-Net est disponible en ligne, en anglais : http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/reports/PDF/GHI_ConfReport.pdf

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts