No description available.

Thesis advisor: Seth Jacobs / This dissertation examines the intersections of transnational anarchist terrorism, American foreign relations, and national security in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As such, the primary purpose is to examine how cultural concerns exert an influence over discussions of national security in the United States. In the face of an unprecedented wave of bombings and assassinations around the world, Americans made clear that anarchist terrorism was a dual menace. First, the actual threat of violence posed an external security problem that needed to be addressed. Government officials as well as private individuals debated the need to protect public officials, curtail press freedoms, punish anarchist crimes, and cooperate with other states to suppress anarchist violence. At the same time, however, many Americans expressed concern that by overreacting and making acceptable the passage of measures that would erode traditional values in the name of providing security, anarchist terrorism posed a second—greater—threat to American society. The failure to satisfactorily resolve those conflicting priorities, this dissertation argues, set the boundaries within which discussions over how to protect society from the threat of anarchist violence—both real and imagined—would take place. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2019. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History.

This dissertation explores how, between 1879 and 1945, American archaeologists contributed to the expansion of the U.S. state’s presence overseas and in the western territories; how they legitimated, propagated, and amplified imperial projects across the globe; and how they spurred broader American investments in the world and antiquity. It follows archaeologists out of museums and lecture halls and into the field, where their research demanded the cultivation of local elites for access to sites; organization of indigenous peoples, local peasants, and migrant workers into labor regimes; enlistment of diplomatic aid to secure possession of finds; and collaboration with the Departments of War and the Interior to institute policies of protection and surveillance. Whether they operated in Mediterranean states within the political orbit of Europe’s Great Powers, the colonial-territorial American Southwest, United Fruit enclaves in Guatemala, British-controlled Palestine, or occupied Japan—American archaeologists considered disputed and less-than sovereign spaces the most bountiful fields for harvesting artifacts. Contested antiquities—which no group or nation bore singular possession—then followed archaeologists back to the United States, where Americans staked their own claims to them, using these remnants of the past to understand themselves as heirs to collective—Western, settler, pan-American, Judeo-Christian, or world—heritages. Chapter one sets the stage by revealing how government agents, namely consuls, once spearheaded American contributions to archaeological research. Chapter two examines the Archaeological Institute of America’s first projects—conducting a major excavation and establishing a field school—in the Ottoman Empire and Greece, two ostensibly sovereign nations, and the appeal of Western civilization. Chapter three explores the relationship between archaeologists and settler-colonialism in New Mexico prior to statehood. Chapter four connects archaeological work at the Maya site of Quiriguá to the informal-imperial projects and pan-American ideas that structured U.S.-Central American relations. Chapter five details the complex interactions between American archaeologists, British authorities, Jewish settlers, and local Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Chapter six explores the height of American archaeologists’ collaboration with the U.S. government—serving as advisors in the Second World War—and the development of the world heritage idea amid the “war without mercy” in the Pacific. / 2023-01-27T00:00:00Z

This dissertation traces the international, intellectual, and institutional history of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). This organization became the intellectual branch of the United Nations and was able to mobilize intellectual resources from around the world. Historians, educators, economists, and communications theorists used the organization’s conferences, roundtables, and meetings to forge transnational networks. American and European statesmen exploited these networks to encourage postwar peace and promote their own visions of international society. Third World diplomats and intellectuals embraced the organization but campaigned against its Eurocentric priorities. They pushed it to focus on discrediting the set of ideas and assumptions that underpinned the imperial world order. American diplomats and intellectuals championed UNESCO’s anticolonial agenda for decades and assisted such global campaigns as the fight against illiteracy, the preservation of ancient monuments, and the transfer of communications technology. By the 1970s, however, intellectual disagreements about the international economic system sparked a war of ideas and instigated a diplomatic crisis that led to American withdrawal from the organization. The decline of European imperialism and the rise of the Third World led to decades of economic, diplomatic, and military tension. This dissertation concludes that this sea change in world history also led to profound confrontation in the international realm of information and ideas. UNESCO was not the only forum devoted to the international exchange of information and ideas. But its authority as the intellectual arm of the United Nations made it one of the major battlegrounds in the struggle to create a postcolonial world.

What is NATO? This diplomatic history reveals that NATO and its meaning were contingent and never static. Instead, NATO was a machine the allies sought to adapt and use to achieve their national interests. NATO was shrouded in an "Atlantic mystique," the suggestion that the allies practiced a unique and exceptional type of cooperation based on shared values and common heritage. But this mystique did not define or ensure NATO's longevity; in fact NATO was thought necessary because of differences between the allies. The allies' national interests did converge on fundamental points, like the need for security. But they rarely agreed on specifics. And when they disagreed on basic questions, like NATO's relationship to the rest of the world, the role of Europe in NATO, and the American commitment to the continent, sparks flew. But because NATO was not static, it could adapt. And the hope held by each ally that they could convince their allies to change NATO to meet their needs - the hope inherent in a dynamic NATO machine - kept the allies working together. From 1955 to 1968, both the allies and the world situation changed dramatically. So to did the allies' plans and uses they saw for NATO. The primary interest of allies was protection from the Soviet Union. But the allies - even some in the Federal Republic of Germany - also believed NATO protected them from a resurgent Germany. Just how to defend against either threat was never agreed. But the allies believed that NATO, by keeping the Cold War cold, and by fostering cooperation between the western European states, established a Pax Atlantica. In this Atlantic peace the allies prospered. They cooperated and they competed, but peacefully. By the end of the 1960s, the allies believed NATO was necessary to maintaining the Pax Atlantica, even if - especially if - the Soviet empire collapsed. Amidst the crises of the 1950s and 1960s, the allies came to believe NATO was guaranteed a long future. / History

During World War II, the United States had worked in a multilateral fashion with Great Britain and the Soviet Union to form the victorious "Big Three." The countries were optimistic that the peace they had achieved would be sustainable. However, after the Cold War began, the United States backed away from opportunities to work multilaterally; instead, working unilaterally to spread democracy and other principles around the globe. On many occasions, the United States has chosen to take action alone, leaving it isolated from other countries. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system, the United States has sought superpower status and has sought to become a global hegemon on many fronts. Issues such as ideology and human rights have created tension in U.S. bilateral relations, notably with Russia, China, and France. While headway has been made to reduce tension since the Cold War, other issues have prevented the complete alleviation of tension in U.S. foreign relations with the three countries. The United States' pursuit of hegemonic status employing a unilateral approach and isolationist strategy has resulted in much of the tension seen today. While there are many examples, the most prominent example is that of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. This and several other issues are addressed in the evolution of U.S. foreign policy after the Cold War with Russia, China, and France.

Approved for public release; distribution in unlimited. / The role of Latin America in U.S. foreign policy has ebbed and flowed for over 100 years. Over the last 15 years, the relationship between the United States and Latin America has seen a precipitous drop in both cooperation and cordiality. The amicable relationships that the United States once enjoyed with Brazil and Venezuela specifically have become acrimonious. With the United States' increased interest in completing a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement by January, relations with Brazil are vital. The United States' continued dependence on imported petroleum from Venezuela and America's concern over Venezuela's growing relationship with Cuba make this country also important to U.S. foreign policy. The thesis focuses on the United States' ability to use its cultural influence (soft power) to positively effect U.S. relations with Brazil and Venezuela. By analyzing past and present effects of U.S. cultural influence in these two countries, the U.S. can better understand and appreciate the influence it wields as the world's only remaining super power. This thesis finds that despite historic evidence, the U.S. has had and continues to have a propensity to use soft power influence tactically, diminishing the effectiveness of its innate power and influence as being the global leader in military, economic, cultural, and technological matters. Conversely, the U.S. attempts to use its hard power (military and economic) strategically, thereby only breeding anti-Americanism globally. / Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy

This dissertation is about American Red Cross and YMCA work in revolutionary and civil war Russia. It focuses on the most significant phases of these organizations’ efforts in terms of the numbers of personnel involved and the funds expended: Moscow and Petrograd, 1917–18; northern Russia during the Allied military intervention, 1918–19; and Siberia and the Russian Far East, from 1918 through the early 1920s. By drawing on dozens of often underused archival collections this study is able to discuss these “constructive efforts” in much fuller detail than have existing works. The activities of the Americans who worked in Russia, rather than those who made policy from afar, are of primary interest. The concern here, beyond the what, where, and who, is why: Why did American relief or social service work occur? The answers, of which there are several, include a desire to provide assistance to suffering populations. But the humanitarian impulse was often not the one that carried the day when decisions about policy and practice were taken. Military concerns were important, especially while the Great War still raged on the western front, and while Allied and American soldiers fought Russian Bolsheviks. American relief workers also saw themselves as contributing directly to relations between Russia and Russians on the one hand, and the United States, the Allies, and the American people on the other. They were moved to carry out their work because they saw the importance of it for the present and future of relations between the two countries. Americans in Russia also took advantage of the presence of soldiers, civilian refugees, and former prisoners of war from a variety of European countries to spread the good word about all things American. Ultimately, Americans viewed revolutionary Russia through the lens of modernization. With American help, the future could be bright. With the right leadership in place to oversee their education, honest, hardworking, and intellectually curious peasants (as they were described by contemporary observers) could be turned into modern citizens. The Russian project failed to achieve its promise, but for a time Americans retained their optimism about Russia’s future.

This dissertation is about American Red Cross and YMCA work in revolutionary and civil war Russia. It focuses on the most significant phases of these organizations’ efforts in terms of the numbers of personnel involved and the funds expended: Moscow and Petrograd, 1917–18; northern Russia during the Allied military intervention, 1918–19; and Siberia and the Russian Far East, from 1918 through the early 1920s. By drawing on dozens of often underused archival collections this study is able to discuss these “constructive efforts” in much fuller detail than have existing works. The activities of the Americans who worked in Russia, rather than those who made policy from afar, are of primary interest. The concern here, beyond the what, where, and who, is why: Why did American relief or social service work occur? The answers, of which there are several, include a desire to provide assistance to suffering populations. But the humanitarian impulse was often not the one that carried the day when decisions about policy and practice were taken. Military concerns were important, especially while the Great War still raged on the western front, and while Allied and American soldiers fought Russian Bolsheviks. American relief workers also saw themselves as contributing directly to relations between Russia and Russians on the one hand, and the United States, the Allies, and the American people on the other. They were moved to carry out their work because they saw the importance of it for the present and future of relations between the two countries. Americans in Russia also took advantage of the presence of soldiers, civilian refugees, and former prisoners of war from a variety of European countries to spread the good word about all things American. Ultimately, Americans viewed revolutionary Russia through the lens of modernization. With American help, the future could be bright. With the right leadership in place to oversee their education, honest, hardworking, and intellectually curious peasants (as they were described by contemporary observers) could be turned into modern citizens. The Russian project failed to achieve its promise, but for a time Americans retained their optimism about Russia’s future.