Ph.D. Candidate Bernhard Blumenau was kind enough to send me the following information about an upcoming conference at HEID:
"On 4 April 1949, the treaty creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the NATO, was signed. It established a military alliance that was to shape international affairs ever since its foundation. Although its original purpose – to organise the defence of the West against military challenges coming from the East – became obsolete in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO still exists today.
On the occasion of NATO’s 60th anniversary, the Fondation Pierre Du Bois pour l’histoire du temps present and the Graduate Institute’s International History and Politics unit is organizing an international conference on 23-24 April 2009. Entitled “Transatlantic Security Issues from the Cold War to the 21st Century” it will bring together well-known scholars from all over the world to explore NATO’s past, present and future. Among others, emphasis will be put on the transatlantic relationship by focussing on the US and key European states. Moreover, the impact of important international events – such as the Korean War and the end of the Cold War – on the alliance will be addressed as well as the new challenges for NATO in the post-Cold War era.
Six different panels will deal with the following subjects: NATO during the Cold War: Success and Problems (Anne Deighton, François David, Leopoldo Nuti, Sam Wells); Country Perspectives: an Evolution (Jenny Raflik, Georges-Henri Soutou, Benedikt Schönborn, Daniel Möckli); Culture, Identity and Representation in Transatlantic Relations (Tuomas Forsberg, Jérome Gygax, Guillaume de Rougé, Basil Germond); Transatlantic Security and the Middle East (Roland Popp, Jon Alterman, Pascal Venier); Transatlantic Relations and Institutional Issues (Hanna Ojanen, Wolfgang Krieger, Axel Marion); and Transatlantic Security and the Legacy of the Cold War (Jérome Elie, Vladislav Zubok, James Goldgeier, Jussi Hanhimäki).
The conference will launch a series of meetings organised by the Pierre Du Bois Foundation which was officially inaugurated last December by the President of the Swiss Confederation, Pascal Couchepin, and aims at promoting knowledge about contemporary history. The convenors of the conference are Irina Du Bois, Prof Jussi Hanhimäki, Prof Georges-Henri Soutou and Dr Basil Germond. They are assisted by Bernhard Blumenau (PhD candidate, HPI)."
Those interested in the Conference should check here and here for updates to the schedule and practical information.
6.1.09
Professor Victor-Yves Ghebali has passed; Daniel Warner put up a tribute on the Institute's main page.
5.1.09
Preservation of Sources
This past weekend's New York Times had an interesting editorial on the challenges historians of the Bush (43) administration are likely to face: missing sources.
As noted, this is not a phenomenon unique to the Bush administraiton - every administration has secrets they would like to keep - but the fact that this administration's dealings, unlike its predecessors, was largely conducted by email - creating correspondence 50 times more voluminous than that of the Clinton administration - means that the gaps might not be evident until the missing information is permanently lost.
The editorial goes on to note the public should thank the historians and archivists suing the Bush administration for access to documents which might track the misdeeds of the administration, and calls upon President-elect Obama to open up records previously shielded by "political interference."
For me, the article raised the question: what role for historians? Do we merely interpret the record, or can we have a role in preserving it as well?
Read the article in its entirety here.
True to its mania for secrecy, the Bush administration is leaving behind vast gaps in the most sensitive White House e-mail records, and with lawyers and public interest groups in hot pursuit of information that deserves to be part of the permanent historical record.
As noted, this is not a phenomenon unique to the Bush administraiton - every administration has secrets they would like to keep - but the fact that this administration's dealings, unlike its predecessors, was largely conducted by email - creating correspondence 50 times more voluminous than that of the Clinton administration - means that the gaps might not be evident until the missing information is permanently lost.
The editorial goes on to note the public should thank the historians and archivists suing the Bush administration for access to documents which might track the misdeeds of the administration, and calls upon President-elect Obama to open up records previously shielded by "political interference."
For me, the article raised the question: what role for historians? Do we merely interpret the record, or can we have a role in preserving it as well?
Read the article in its entirety here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
