Book Review: The INF Treaty of 1987: A Reappraisal by Philipp Gassert, Tim Geiger and Hermann Wentker (eds)

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY Casopis za Suvremenu Povijest Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI:10.1177/00220094221111989i
A. Bateman
{"title":"Book Review: The INF Treaty of 1987: A Reappraisal by Philipp Gassert, Tim Geiger and Hermann Wentker (eds)","authors":"A. Bateman","doi":"10.1177/00220094221111989i","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"escape this milieu; he had to work within it. His embrace of human rights, what Søndergaard calls Reagan’s ‘turnaround’ (chapter 2), set his administration up for a series of confrontations with Congress on a shared moral playing field. Human rights, of course, were defined according to ideological position. The Democrats opposed rightist regimes in Latin America; Republicans condemned Communist ones in the East. However, both used the language of human rights to agitate for their respective positions. Intriguingly, both sides, as Søndergaard notes, were essentially silent on China. The PRC had, over the preceding three decades, caused more human misery than all the bad governments American leader set themselves against in the same period, but received no censure. Given China’s contemporary relevance in debates about human rights, this might have been given more attention by the author. In consistently clear prose, devoid of unnecessary jargon and theorizing, Søndergaard lays out his case studies. In each, Reagan’s conservative vision of human rights – construed as essentially civil and political rights – met the more expansive emphasis of Democrats – who saw human rights as fundamentally economic and social. Reagan Republicans had begun the 1980s convinced the Democrat position was weak handwringing, an excuse for endless governmental tinkering; they left it with a vision of human rights that had enormously expanded the scope of US power, and which arguably led directly to the demise of the USSR, 1989–91. The book will make a lasting contribution to our understanding of the foreign policy continuity across the final decades of the Cold War. Carter and Reagan inhabited a national and international terrain that was more similar than different, and each deployed a set of moral tenets to aid their navigation of it. Søndergaard has written a sequel to Barbara Keys’ Reclaiming American Virtue: The Human Rights Revolution of the 1970s (2014). Like her, he has obliged us to rethink easy caricatures of US power. Søndergaard reminds us that American politics is sometimes compromised but often advantaged by its endemic contestation over moral questions.","PeriodicalId":53857,"journal":{"name":"Casopis za Suvremenu Povijest","volume":"57 1","pages":"1129 - 1132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Casopis za Suvremenu Povijest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220094221111989i","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

escape this milieu; he had to work within it. His embrace of human rights, what Søndergaard calls Reagan’s ‘turnaround’ (chapter 2), set his administration up for a series of confrontations with Congress on a shared moral playing field. Human rights, of course, were defined according to ideological position. The Democrats opposed rightist regimes in Latin America; Republicans condemned Communist ones in the East. However, both used the language of human rights to agitate for their respective positions. Intriguingly, both sides, as Søndergaard notes, were essentially silent on China. The PRC had, over the preceding three decades, caused more human misery than all the bad governments American leader set themselves against in the same period, but received no censure. Given China’s contemporary relevance in debates about human rights, this might have been given more attention by the author. In consistently clear prose, devoid of unnecessary jargon and theorizing, Søndergaard lays out his case studies. In each, Reagan’s conservative vision of human rights – construed as essentially civil and political rights – met the more expansive emphasis of Democrats – who saw human rights as fundamentally economic and social. Reagan Republicans had begun the 1980s convinced the Democrat position was weak handwringing, an excuse for endless governmental tinkering; they left it with a vision of human rights that had enormously expanded the scope of US power, and which arguably led directly to the demise of the USSR, 1989–91. The book will make a lasting contribution to our understanding of the foreign policy continuity across the final decades of the Cold War. Carter and Reagan inhabited a national and international terrain that was more similar than different, and each deployed a set of moral tenets to aid their navigation of it. Søndergaard has written a sequel to Barbara Keys’ Reclaiming American Virtue: The Human Rights Revolution of the 1970s (2014). Like her, he has obliged us to rethink easy caricatures of US power. Søndergaard reminds us that American politics is sometimes compromised but often advantaged by its endemic contestation over moral questions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
书评:《1987年中导条约:重新评价》,作者:菲利普·加塞特、蒂姆·盖格和赫尔曼·温特克(编)
逃离这种环境;他必须在其中工作。他对人权的拥抱,Søndergaard称之为里根的“转变”(第2章),使他的政府在共同的道德竞争环境中与国会发生了一系列对抗。当然,人权是根据意识形态立场来定义的。民主党人反对拉丁美洲的右派政权;共和党人谴责东方的共产主义。然而,两人都用人权的语言煽动各自的立场。有趣的是,正如Søndergaard所指出的,双方基本上对中国保持沉默。在过去的三十年里,中华人民共和国造成的人类苦难比美国领导人在同一时期所反对的所有糟糕政府都要多,但没有受到谴责。考虑到中国在当代人权辩论中的相关性,这可能会受到作者的更多关注。Søndergaard以一贯清晰的散文,没有不必要的行话和理论,阐述了他的案例研究。在每一种情况下,里根对人权的保守愿景——本质上被解释为公民权利和政治权利——都得到了民主党人更广泛的强调——他们认为人权从根本上是经济和社会的。里根的共和党人从20世纪80年代开始就相信民主党的立场是软弱的,这是政府无休止修补的借口;他们留给它的人权愿景极大地扩大了美国的权力范围,可以说直接导致了苏联在1989年至91年的灭亡。这本书将为我们理解冷战最后几十年的外交政策连续性做出持久贡献。卡特和里根生活在一个相似而非不同的国家和国际环境中,他们都运用了一套道德原则来帮助他们驾驭这一环境。Søndergaard为Barbara Keys的《收回美国美德:20世纪70年代的人权革命》(2014)写了续集。和她一样,他迫使我们重新思考对美国力量的简单讽刺。Søndergaard提醒我们,美国政治有时会妥协,但往往因其在道德问题上的普遍争论而处于有利地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Croatian Emigration in North America and Aid Shipments to the Population of the „Old Country” during 1944 and 1945 The Convergence of the Political Strategies of Slovene Catholic Populists and Liberals in World War I The Establishment of Trade Relations between the Socialist Republic of Montenegro and the Federal States of the Federal Republic of Germany Radna snaga iz Nezavisne Države Hrvatske za njemačku zrakoplovnu industriju “Cultural phenomena of two giants”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1