Fandom

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History U

749pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

The Ancient World Edit

Ugarit Ugarit was an ancient harbor city located on the Mediterranean coast of northern Syria. The site is known today as Râs Shamra. Archaeological expeditions began there in 1929, and since that time over 1,250 clay tablets containing cuneiform texts have been discovered. The tablets, dating from the middle of the second millennium b.c.e., are written in the alphabetic language of Ugaritic, a northwest Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. The culture refl ected in the texts has shed great light on the Canaanite backdrop of the jewish bible, providing scholars a look at the linguistic and cultural conditions of the Canaanites from their point of view. In addition to the clay tablets, archaeologists have uncovered a royal palace and several administrative buildings, as well as an extensive residential area. The palace was enormous, consisting of approximately 90 rooms and six large courtyards. In addition, several temples have been found, one of which was dedicated to Baal. Although the material fi nds at Ugarit are certainly impressive, the most signifi cant fi nd is the texts. In the very fi rst season of excavations, clay tablets were found littering the fl oor of a house. This nicely built house turned out to be the home of the high priest of Baal. It was near the temple of Baal, and the texts were from the priest’s personal library. Particularly interesting are the numerous tablets containing mythological poems about the Canaanite gods Baal, Baal’s sister the warrior goddess Anat, El, the head of the pantheon, and El’s consort, Asherah, the mother of the gods. Other gods in the texts include Athtar (biblical Ashtaroth) and the divine craftsman Kothar wa-Hasis. These mythological texts help scholars understand the backdrop of biblical admonitions to avoid contact with the gods of Canaan, as well as the worldview of the ancient inhabitants of Ugarit. Legendary fi gures in the texts include the hero Daniel and his son, Aqhat. The main mythological texts from Ugarit are the Baal cycle, the Kirta epic, and the legend of Aqhat. The Baal cycle tells the story of Baal’s efforts to establish his kingship over the universe as well as the building of his temple. The Kirta epic tells of the near extinction of a royal house and its subsequent restoration at the hands of the creator god El. The legend of Aqhat, who is the son of Daniel, is the primary text showing the relationship between a human hero and the gods. Since the mythological texts are poetic, much has been learned about the conventions of Canaanite poetry, helping scholars understand the biblical poetry contained in the Psalms and Proverbs. There have also been many administrative and ritual texts discovered at Ugarit. Five separate archives have been found at the royal palace, yielding texts in Ugaritic as well as Akkadian. Other libraries have been recovered from the private homes of priests, lawyers, government offi cials, and professional scribes. The administrative documents show how the kingdom of Ugarit was organized as well as the nature of its interactions with surrounding nations, allowing scholars to reconstruct the political history of the last seven kings of the city. The ritual texts shed light on Canaanite U 473 cultic rituals and present many parallels to the sacrifi cial sections of the Jewish Bible. The kingdom of Ugarit ended with the invasion of the Sea Peoples in approximately 1200 b.c.e. Tablets discovered abandoned in a kiln date to the fall of the city and describe the transfer to the north of Ugarit’s army and navy, leaving the city defenseless against attack. One tablet records the sack of the city from which the kingdom was never able to recover. See also Akkad; Sargon of Akkad; Solomon. Further reading: Parker, Simon, ed. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997; Smith, Mark. Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Eric Smith Ulfi las (c. 311–c. 383 c.e.) religious missionary Ulifi las (Gothic: Wulfi la) was a tireless missionary and educator among various Gothic tribes of the Western Roman Empire in the latter half of the fourth century c.e. Not only did he contribute to the culture and education of the “barbarian” tribes before they were integrated into civilized Europe, but he profoundly affected the course of Christianity in the Western Latin Church. He was born in Cappadocia, in modern-day Turkey, probably to a Christian family. Like another great Christian missionary, Patrick, a marauding tribe captured him and taught him barbarian customs and language in his youth. At some later point in his life he received a classical education, so that by the time he was an adult he was fl uent in Greek, Latin, and the language of his former captors, Gothic. He became a priest and then was consecrated a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a leading proponent of Arianism. His skills in languages made him a valuable asset for spreading the Christian faith. He was assigned missionary work among the Gothic tribes who were just outside the Roman Empire in the area around the lower Danube River. He did missionary work for seven years before being forced out by a hostile Visigoth chief. Nonetheless, he persisted in his work for 30 years on both sides of the imperial border, sending out missionaries among the Visigoths and putting the Gothic language into writing. At last he succeeded at both of his projects: The Visigoths as a people became Christian, and he translated the Bible into Gothic. The Christianity that he taught his followers was not that of the Council of Nicaea. Ulfi las apparently believed that Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth was “like” the Father and not of the same essence or being with the Father. Few of his theological writings remain, but a statement of his faith quoted by one of his students, recorded by a bishop in opposition to Ambrose of Milan, shows Arian language. This same tendency can be found in the tribes among whom he worked. His most famous writing, however, is the Gothic Bible, done alone or with collaborators. He may have devised the fi rst alphabet for the Goths, using a combination of Greek and Latin letters. This achievement by itself had enormous repercussions for the transmission of Roman and Greek ideas into Gothic culture. The New Testament part of the Gothic Bible now includes only the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, and the Old Testament survives only in small parts. The ideas of Arianism spread from the tribes with whom he worked to other Germanic groups across the Danube River. Eventually all barbarians were converted: Vandals, Burgundians, Suevi, and Lombards. When the Huns invaded and forced all of these tribal groups into Roman territory, they brought their Arianism with them and made it as big an infl uence in the West as it had been in the East. Were it not for emergence of the Franks—who were Orthodox Christians— Arianism might have become the predominant belief of the Latin Church. See also Bible translations; Greek Church; late barbarians. Further reading: Sumruld, William A. Augustine and the Arians: The Bishop of Hippo’s Encounters with Ulfi lan Arianism. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1994; Thompson, E. A., The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfi la. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. Mark F. Whitters Ur The Sumerian city of Ur is identifi ed with Tell el- Muqayyar in southern Iraq, along a course of the Euphrates River that has dried up. It is commonly related to the birthplace of Abraham (“Ur of the Chaldeans” in Genesis 11:28–31). Excavations at Ur began in 1849, but C. Leonard Woolley did most of the work in 1922–34. Ur was fi rst occupied from the middle of the Ubaid period (c. 5000–4000 b.c.e.), attested by only 474 Ulfi las pottery, tools, and a few graves. The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods (c. 4000–3000 b.c.e.) saw the construction of a temple platform adorned with clay cones, suggesting the city’s religious importance even at this early stage. A huge cemetery site indicates a thriving local population. Rubbish deposits near the temple platform contain proto-cuneiform clay tablets and pottery dated to the Early Dynastic period (c. 3000–2350 b.c.e.). Seal impressions bear symbols that supposedly represent city names, implying Ur’s relations with other cities. Furthermore 16 “Royal Tombs” of the Early Dynastic III period (c.2600–2350 b.c.e.) were discovered in these deposit layers, including the magnifi cent burials of King Meskalamdug and Queen Pu-Abi. Numerous burials in the tombs’ outer rooms suggest that attendants were sacrifi ced along with the dead king. The strata above these tombs have yielded seal impressions of King Mesannepada, named in the Sumerian King List as the founder of the First Dynasty at Ur. During the Akkadian period (c. 2350–2193 b.c.e.), Sargon of Akkad appointed his daughter Enheduanna as the en-priestess of Nanna, the moon deity whose cult center was Ur. This strategy helped legitimize the new Akkadian dynasty by emphasizing its continuity with Sumerian tradition. From then and into the Ur III period, a pattern emerged in which the en-priestess at Ur was a princess from the dominant royal family. The Ur III dynasty (2112–2004 b.c.e.) was founded by Ur-Nammu. Like Sargon, Ur-Nammu reigned over an empire encompassing Sumer and Akkad, this time with Ur as the capital. This period was marked by intensive urbanization and proliferation of written (mostly economic) records, as well as the standardization of the writing system, weights and measures, and the calendar sequence. Also dated to this time are The Ur III dynasty of 2112–2004 b.c.e. was a period marked by urbanization and academic accomplishments. Dated to this time are the famous ziggurat temple tower of Ur-Nammu (above) and the Temenos (temple complex) of Nanna, among others. Ur 475 the famous ziggurat (pyramidal temple tower) of Ur- Nammu, the Temenos (temple complex) of Nanna, the Ehursag palace, and the Giparu, where the en-priestess lived. Shulgi, the son of Ur-Nammu, claimed deifi cation for himself, a status later adopted by his successors. The Ur III city was eventually captured by the Elamites of the Shimashki dynasty, and its last king, Ibbi-Sin, was carried away into exile. Ishbi-Erra, founder of the fi rst dynasty of Isin, expelled the Elamites from Ur and rebuilt the city. Henceforth, the rulers of Isin claimed to be heirs of the Ur III heritage. The city, however, soon came under the control of the rival dynasty at Larsa. Babylon’s ascendancy under Hammurabi further eclipsed any political power at Ur. Nonetheless, Ur remained an important religious center in the years to follow. Ur-Nammu’s ziggurat and the Temenos enclosure underwent restoration by the Kassite king Kurigalzu, and the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus. Also, Nabonidus revived the thenobsolete tradition of appointing the king’s daughter as Ur’s en-priestess. Ur, however, eventually declined in the fourth century b.c.e., possibly due to the Euphrates’ shift away from the city. See also Babylon: early period; Babylon: later periods; Elam; Fertile Crescent. Further reading: Woolley, C. Leonard. Ur of the Chaldees. Rev. by P. R. S. Moorey. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982; ———, et al. Ur Excavations and Ur Excavation Texts. 19 vols. London and Philadelphia: n.p., 1927–76. John Zhu-En Wee

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Uighur Empire From the fi fth century Turkic tribal groups under various names were found living beyond China’s northern borders from Korea to Central Asia. With China divided the Turks fi rst preyed on, then conquered and ruled parts of northern China in many short lived dynasties. With the rise of the Tang (T’ang) dynasty (618–909), the tables turned. Taizong (T’ai-tsung, r. 626–649) defeated both the Eastern and Western Turks, accepted their vassalage, and was proclaimed their heavenly khan. The Uighurs were a branch of Turks organized into 10 clans and lived primarily a nomadic life in the steppes of Mongolia north of China. In the mid-eighth century they became the most powerful nomads in the region, and under Kaghan Ku-li p’ei-lo established an Uighur Empire, which was a client state of the Tang. This ambiguity of status is apparent from the kaghans’ claim that they were appointed by heaven, though they simultaneously sought and received appointment to their positions from the Tang court. A permanent capital was established at Karabalghasan in Mongolia but the Uighurs continued to live in tents and the kaghan’s palace was a large golden tent that could hold 100 people. The Uighur state prospered under Ku-li, his son Mo-yen-ch’o (r. 747– 759), and his son Mo-yu. The An Lushan (An Lu-Shan) Rebellion (755–763) elevated the Uighurs from being vassals to useful and diffi cult allies of the Tang. Kaghan Mo-ye-ch’o answered Suzong’s (Su-tsung, successor to Ming Huang, who abdicated in disgrace in 755) call for help. In 757 the Uighur cavalry arrived from Mongolia and helped recapture the Tang eastern capital Luoyang (Loyang) from the rebels. The Tang had to pay a high price for the assistance—as agreed to beforehand the Uighurs were allowed to loot Luoyang for three days. Later in the rebellion in 762, a Sino-Uighur force retook Luoyang. Again the Uighurs looted the city, including the palaces; massacred thousands; burned down Buddhist temples; and committed other acts of cruelty. Many other cities in northern China also suffered destruction and looting by the Uighur “allies.” Another result of Uighur military assistance was a series of marriages between members of the two ruling houses: Members of the Li imperial clan married Uighur princesses and a total of seven principal wives (out of 13) of Uighur kaghans were Tang princesses, including three who were daughters of reigning Tang emperors (others were adopted daughters). Uighurs continued to demand and receive costly gifts from the Tang court after the end of the rebellion and also enjoyed favorable terms of trade with the Chinese, for example receiving 40–50 bolts of silk for each horse, which was far above the fair value. The decline of Tang power in the Western Regions also profi ted the Uighurs, who charged high tolls for trade goods in transit. The year 790 was the last time the Tang and Uighur armies campaigned together, against the Tibetan Kingdom, which had also grown powerful as a result of the An Lushan Rebellion. While in Luoyang in 762 the Uighur kaghan Mou-yu converted to Manicheanism, choosing it over Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity. As a result Manicheanism became the offi cial religion of the Uighur state. This move was welcomed by the Tang court, which hoped that the adopting of this peaceful religion would make the Uighurs less violent. At the kaghan’s request China allowed the building of Manichean temples in Louyang and several additional important cities. Because the Sogdians were responsible for converting the Uighurs to their religion, Sogdian infl uence over the Uighurs was enhanced. An alphabet, based on the Sogdian script, was created for writing Uighur, which until then had no written language. Until this time all contemporary written knowledge about the nomads in contact with China came from Chinese sources. Many Tang government bureaus, such as the ministry of war, court of diplomatic reception, and provincial offi cials, gathered and kept records on the geography, customs, clothes, and products of the Uighurs and other border peoples. Naturally they focused on how the nomads impacted on China and refl ected the Chinese perspective. In the 20th century archaeologists discovered two steles in Karabalghasun and in northern Mongolia with inscriptions in three languages: Chinese, Sogdian, and Uighur. Some documents in the Uighur language have also survived, preserved in the caves of Dunhuang (Tunhuang) in western China. Two dynasties and 13 kaghans presided over the Uighurs during their century of power; fi ve were assassinated; several others were overthrown. Uighur politics was unstable because of tribal politics and much depended on the ability of the kaghan to maintain control over autonomous chiefs. Social changes that resulted from increased wealth and power after the mid-eighth century undermined traditional Uighur society and economy, from nomadic to semiagricultural, and subsistence to dependence on imported luxuries. The new religion created tensions between traditionalists and Manichean converts; Manicheanism also made the Uighurs less warlike. Aggressive neighbors, Tibetans, and especially the appearance of another group of warlike nomads called Kirghiz began to encroach on Uighur territory. In 839 a famine and pestilence hit. By 844 the Uighur state had collapsed, never to rise again. Further reading: Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes, A History of Central Asia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994; MacKerras, Colin, ed. and trans. The Uighur Empire According to the T’ang Dynastic Histories: A Study of Sino-Uighur Relations, 744–840. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, l972; Sinor, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Umayyad dynasty After Ali’s death and his son Hasan’s renunciation of the caliphate, Muaw’iya became the undisputed caliph of the Muslim world in 661. He established a hereditary dynasty with Damascus as its capital. However, unlike in most western monarchies, succession was not based on primogeniture; the ruler selected anyone within his family as the chosen heir. However, the undisputed claim of the Umayyad family to the caliphate was short lived. When Muaw’iya died in 680, his son Yazid’s claim to the position was immediately challenged by Ali’s younger son Husayn. Yazid’s forces infl icted a stunning defeat over Husayn and his Shi’i followers at the Battle of Kerbala but the victory was bittersweet as it resulted in the permanent division of the Muslim community into the orthodox, majority Sunnis, who accepted the legality of the Umayyad rule, and the Shi’i, who did not. Internal divisions, especially from Iraq and Khurasan, an eastern province of the old Sassanid empire in Persia, were persistent problems during the Umayyad reign. The Umayyads appointed Hajjah ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi to control the rebellious provinces of Iraq and he was fairly successful in putting down the sporadic, but persistent rebellions. He was responsible for appointing governors for Khurasan as well. In the fi rst years of the empire the administration was fairly decentralized and Greeks and Copts held many major bureaucratic positions. Muslim judges (qadis) were appointed but they dealt only with the Muslim population. The majority non-Muslim population retained their own communal systems. Under Abd al-Malik (r. 685–705), the Umayyad empire became more highly centralized. He established a national mint and the process of Arabization of the vast Umayyad territory spread as Arabic became the lingua franca of the empire. Arabic became the language not only of Islam but of trade and government. Provincial governors were appointed to administer the far-fl ung territories but when the caliphs were weak and central control lessened, these governors often became political powers in their own right. The boundaries of the empire continued to widen as Abd al-Malik personally led his troops into battle. His able commander Hasan ibn Nu’man took Tunis in North Africa in 693; the Berber population subsequently converted to Islam and was largely responsible for the spread of the faith into Spain. Abd al-Malik also paid for the construction of the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem. Built on the site where Abraham was willing to sacrifi ce his son 406 Umayyad dynasty Isaac, it was also the site of Solomon’s temple and the prophet Muhammad’s miraculous ascent into the heavens. Muslims referred to the site as the Haram as- Sharif (Sacred Mount), while it was known as the Temple Mount to Jews. Thus the site had holy meaning for all three great monotheistic religions. Completed in 692 the Dome of the Rock remains one of the most notable architectural achievements of the Arab/Islamic empire. The great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus was completed in 705. Essentially secular rulers the Umayyads also built numerous fortresses and hunting palaces. The Umayyad empire reached its furthest geographic limits under Caliph al-Walid (r. 705–715). The Berber commander al Tariq led Muslim forces across into Spain in 711 and established a foothold at Jabal Tariq or Gibraltar. To the Arabs, the Spanish province was known as al-Andalus, or land of the Vandals. Within a few years Muslim armies had moved across the Pyrenees into France. Muslim armies were halted in 732–733 by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, marking the farthest point of Muslim conquests in western Europe. In the east, Muslim armies conquered Afghanistan and territory across the Indus River deep into India, where they made numerous converts among the Buddhist population. Attempts in 670 and subsequently to take the Byzantine capital Constantinople all failed and the Byzantine Empire was able to survive until the 15th century. In contrast to his predecessors, Caliph Umar II (r. 717–720) was known for his religious piety. He proclaimed the equality of all his subjects, Muslims, Arabs, or non-Muslims, but he also established some differentiations based on dress whereby Christians were forbidden to wear silk garments or turbans in public. The collection and distribution of tax revenues were a perennial problem for the Umayyads. Provincial governors were often reluctant to send monies to the state, preferring to spend revenues in their own localities. The Umayyads never established an effective centralized means of fi scal control. Under Islamic law the non-Muslim population had not been forced to convert and non-Muslims or Dhimmis remained the majority of the population throughout most of the empire. Dhimmis paid land tax in addition to a poll tax from which Arab Muslims, the original conquerors, were exempt. In addition Muslim Arabs also received a state stipend. As more non-Arab subjects converted to Islam, revenues fl owing into the central treasury decreased. The Umayyads attempted to replenish revenues with ambitious land reclamation and irrigation schemes to increase agricultural productivity. The revenues from these projects went to the state. Under Caliph Hisham (r. 724–743) land tax was to be paid whether one had converted or not, although converts did become exempt from the poll tax. The non-Arab Muslim population was gradually absorbed into society although the social cleavages between the elite Arab population, represented by the Umayyads, and more recent converts remained. Slaves were at the bottom rung of the social and economic strata. Most slaves were acquired as property in wars, but some were purchased through slave trading. By the eighth century the Umayyads faced mounting economic problems. Revenues for the state and its huge army declined as conquests largely ceased. Unpaid soldiers posed a constant problem of rebellions in the provinces. In its fi nal years the Umayyad Empire was also plagued with internal problems over succession to the caliphate. In 750 the Umayyads lost a major battle to the rebellious Abbasids, who enjoyed support from the Khursasan province. The caliph Marwan fl ed to Egypt but was pursued and killed. Except for Abd al- Rahman most of the Umayyad family was also assassinated. Abd al-Rahman managed to escape and established an Umayyad dynasty in Córdoba, Spain. With the end of the Umayyad dynasty a new Muslim elite of Persian and then Turkish origins emerged under the Abbasid empire. Although it had been built on Islamic conquests, the Umayyad Empire was essentially a secular dynasty. Umayyad rulers, with the exception of the pious Umar II, were known for their lavish secular lifestyles and sumptuous courts. They were pragmatic rulers who opposed those who wanted to establish a religious state. Abd al-Malik paid for the construction of the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem, completed in 692. Umayyad dynasty 407 Under the Umayyads, Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) was a confi dent, largely self-suffi cient empire that covered vast territories made up of many diverse peoples. See also Abbasid dynasty; Berbers; Dhimmi; Islam: art and architecture in the golden age; Muslim Spain; Shi’ism. Further reading: Bonner, Michael, ed. Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005. Lewis, Bernard. The Arabs in History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993; Hawting, G. R. The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate, a.d. 661–750, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2000; Crone, Patricia, and Martin Hinds. God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the fi rst Century of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Janice J. Terry universities, European The fi rst medieval universities grew up in Italy, France, and England, beginning in the late 11th century. At that time Europe began to undergo the commercial revolution. More people made their living by manufacture of goods and trade, and currency started to develop. The commercial centers of Europe, towns, increasingly became the centers of political and cultural life. As the merchants and craftsmen organized themselves into guilds, in order to regulate and promote the interests of their trade, professional teachers, or masters, also organized themselves into institutions that had a corporate legal identity and internal standards and practices. The universities emerged in an era of increasing mobility, growing social and cultural unity, and great intellectual energy in western Europe, both manifesting and contributing to those trends. Up to the time of Charlemagne (c. 800) education took place primarily in the monasteries, and its aim was fundamentally the development and transmission of religious knowledge and the training of monks. From the seventh century, cathedral schools developed under the direction of masters, to train clerics, princes, and nobles outside the monasteries in western Europe, but often this education covered only the most basic intellectual skills. The schools multiplied and grew in depth and importance under the reign of Charlemagne, who sought to raise the level of culture in his empire and to cultivate competent church offi cials and civil administrators. Intended as centers of culture in the new empire of the Franks, schools now were connected with the royal court and cathedrals, as well as with the monasteries. Under Charlemagne and more particularly under the direction of his administrator, Alcuin of York, the basic medieval curriculum was developed, consisting of the seven liberal arts, subdivided into the trivium (logic or dialectic, grammar, and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy). The higher fi elds of learning were law, theology, and medicine. Emphasis on one or another of the liberal arts varied during the medieval period and is a good index of the prevailing mode of intellectual activity in a given time and place. In France and England the new schools soon joined together to form universities of studies, corporate societies representing the teaching profession, which were modeled on the guilds of skilled tradesmen. The universities held juridical status, with legal rights and privileges, including the right to organize their own affairs, and even to keep their own police force to maintain order in the sections of the cities where the schools had come together. In Italy the roots of the university lay in the gathering of students around experts in Roman law, who contributed to the ordering of the complex mass of canonical and civil laws developed in the early Middle Ages. Undergraduate instruction involved lectures and disputations. The basis for both was a collection of classical texts from the area under study. The disputations dealt with questions raised by the text, attempting to resolve them through a counterplay of arguments. The basic degree conferred by the university was the baccalaureate, which followed the completion of a course of studies. Examination requirements varied from university to university. In some universities, especially in Italy, 408 universities, European The date of the founding of the university of Oxford is uncertain, but the pope sanctioned degrees from there in 1254. attendance at lectures was suffi cient; at others students had to demonstrate their skill in a disputation. Students who continued went on for their license to teach at the university level and eventually for the highest degree offered, that of a master, or doctor. The fi rst of the medieval universities developed within a fairly short span of time across a wide geographical expanse. The universities of Paris and Bologna both have laid claim to being the fi rst western European university, with their foundations dated to sometime in the late-11th to mid-12th centuries. The date of the founding of the university of Oxford is uncertain, but the pope sanctioned degrees from there in 1254. There were differences between the Italian and northern European and Spanish universities. The Italian universities, rooted in associations of teachers of Roman law, concentrated on law and medicine and gave less emphasis to theology and arts. Italian universities awarded doctorates, but almost never baccalaureates. Their students were usually 18–25 years old, somewhat older than at the northern universities. In Italy the majority of professors were married laymen, while in the north and Spain most were clergy. Instruction in Italy was through public lectures, and at Paris and Oxford teaching mainly took place in residential colleges. In Italy, there were no teaching colleges. The development of the universities was perhaps the chief social and cultural achievement of the Middle Ages. All the medieval universities had some regulations for the awarding of degrees, and thus served to institutionalize research and education. Of the 81 universities established by the time of the Reformation, 33 had a papal charter, 15 a government sanction, 20 both, and 13 none. They refl ected and contributed to the growth of European social and cultural unity; the teachers and students in the more prominent universities were drawn from a wide variety of places. Above all the universities fueled and channeled the intellectual energy of their social milieu. Though often caricatured and sometimes ridiculed, they promoted serious research and sponsored the audacious project of attempting to integrate the whole of human knowledge. See also Frankish tribe; medieval Europe: educational system. Further reading: Leff, Gordon. Paris and Oxford Universities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries: An Institutional and Intellectual History. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968; Grendler, Paul F. The Universities of the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2002; Pedersen, Olaf. The First Universities: Studium Generale and the Origins of University Education in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. John P. Yocum Urban II (c. 1035–1099) pope Born in France to a noble family, Urban II was elected pope in 1088 when the papacy was still in exile from Rome. He did not enter Rome as pope until 1094. Urban had been educated in church doctrine and had served the church in France and Germany as a papal legate. Urban supported reforms to draw the clergy away from worldly pursuits and toward monasticism. When Alexios I Komnenos, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire based in Constantinople, sent an urgent plea for military help in fi ghting the Seljuk Turks who had taken the holy sites in Jerusalem, Urban responded with a rousing speech at the Council of Clermont I 1095. Addressing his audience in French, Urban called for the Franks, a “race chosen and beloved by God,” to take arms against the Muslim infi dels. Urban directed his request to French Christians; Spanish Christians were expected to fi ght in Spain against Muslim control of the Iberian Peninsula. Urban promised immediate remission of sins to all those who fought on the land or sea against “the pagans.” Refl ecting the religious intolerance of the time, Urban cursed the Muslims as “a despised and base race, which worships demons” and urged those “who have been fi ghting against their brothers and relatives now to fi ght in a proper way against the barbarians.” Thus Urban II launched the fi rst of many Christian crusades against Muslim control over Palestine and the holy sites and set in motion a protracted period of confl ict and, ironically, trade and transmission of ideas and culture, between Christian Europe and the mainly Muslim east. See also Cluny; Crusades; Islam; Seljuk dynasty; Truce and Peace of God. Further reading: Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; Peters, Edward. The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971; Phillips, Jonathan, ed. The First Crusade: Origins and Impact. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997; Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The First Crusade and the Idea Urban II 409 of Crusading. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986; Robinson, Ian Stuart. The Papacy, 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Janice J. Terry Urbino The origins of the city of Urbino in northern Italy begin with the Roman city of Urvinum Mataurense (the little city on the river Mataurus). The region is rich in Roman history. During the Second Punic War, during Hannibal the Carthaginian’s invasion of Italy, his brother Hasdrubal followed him with another army. However lacking the military skill of his sibling, Hasdrubal faced the Romans under the consuls Livius Salinator and Claudius Nero in battle on the banks of the Metaurus River in 207 b.c.e. Hasdrubal was defeated, and his severed head fl ung into Hannibal’s camp. Urbino was one of the battlegrounds after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. During the efforts of the Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565) to win back imperial territory in Italy, Urbino fi gured in the campaigns of the emperor’s great warlord, Count Belisarius. In 538 Belisarius seized Urbino from the Ostrogoths, but he was forced to confront an attack by the Persian Empire in the east before the reconquest of Italy was complete. Justinian’s other great general, Narses, achieved this by 552. Thus, for a time at least, Justinian succeeded in recreating a unifi ed Roman Empire through the successes of his two great commanders. However the eastern empire was unable to maintain its hold on Italy. With the collapse of the Ostrogoths, the Lombards became the dominant power in Italy. They would rule until the eighth century, when in 774 their realm fell to the future emperor Charlemagne. In 800 Charlemagne became emperor of the new Holy Roman Empire, reigning until his death in 814. His empire fractured after his death amid dynastic squabbles among his sons. Finally in 839 Louis II, as Holy Roman Emperor, became supreme in northern Italy. During the Middle Ages, with the decline of the Holy Roman Empire in Italy, Urbino became involved in the wars of the Italian city-states. In 1200 Urbino came under the power of the local lords of Montefeltro, with Bonconte de Montefeltro becoming the effective ruler. Although Urbino rebelled against the Montefeltros in 1228, the family restored their rule by 1234. While Italy was riven by the struggle between the Guelfs, who supported the papacy, and the Ghibellines, who sided with the Holy Roman Emperors, the Montefeltros generally supported the Imperial Hohenstaufen dynasty. At the dawn of the Italian Renaissance great cultural activity occurred in the same time as civil strife. Federico of Montefeltro, who reigned in Urbino from 1444 to 1482, established a court that could give him claim to being one of the fi rst great princes of the Italian Renaissance. He was a successful condottiere, or mercenary captain, and lavished the riches he gained on his court. Piero della Francesca studied art with the precision of a mathematician, doing ground-breaking work in the application of perspective to the emerging Italian art. Federico’s court was centered on the grand Palazzo Ducale in Urbino, which was built over a period of 30 years. Northern Italy at this period also benefi ted from economic prosperity. Commercial elites from the middle class grew wealthy on trade and sometimes were the equals of Italian nobility through their trade, which literally moved through much of the known world. Sometimes Italian nobles who had fallen on hard times would marry daughters of the emerging mercantile class. This not only meant a needed infusion of wealth into their depleted coffers, but also added the cachet of nobility to the merchant families involved in these marriages. The Renaissance was marked by a rediscovery of the knowledge of the ancient world, which the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire had kept alive for over 1,000 years since the fall of the western half in 476. Byzantine scholars like Georgius Gemisthos Pletho and his student Manuel Chrysoloras brought learning to Florence; from there they spread it throughout Italy. When Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Mehmed II in 1453, while Federico ruled in Urbino, many refugees including scholars fl ed to Italy. The Montefeltro dynasty and Urbino as a vibrant city-state ended in 1502. In that year the murderous Cesare Borgia deposed Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, duke of Urbino. Thereafter Urbino became part of the Papal States. See also Byzantine Empire: architecture, culture, and the arts; Constantinople, massacre of; Ottoman Empire: 1299–1453. Further reading: Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. New York: Penguin Books, 1990; Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Everyman’s Library, 1993. John F. Murphy, Jr.

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

ultramontanism Ultramontanism literally means “over the mountains,” and it implies that there are two views of how the Catholic Church should be governed. One view sees leadership as a centralized and unifi ed papacy (in Rome, over the Alps from the rest of Europe) and the other looks for local control and a national church (the church of France or Germany or any other country). Ultramontanism is the former view; Gallicanism is the latter. For centuries, theologians had speculated on the position and authority of the Roman papacy, and often the pope was seen as the center and coordinator of the whole church. The urgency of these thoughts became apparent as the Protestant reformation began and challenged church unity. The fi rst phase of ultramontanism is often called Romanism. It was promulgated by the forces of the Counter-Reformation and later championed by Robert Bellarmine. The bishops of the Council of Trent swallowed their objections to the claims of the papacy if only to stem the tide of Protestant defections among their fl ocks. Ironically, Trent reformed the Catholic Church by depositing even greater powers in the pope. Momentum returned to the Catholic Church as a result of Romanist ultramontanism. All countries adopted it at least externally, even the actively independent regions of France and Germany. The Jesuit order served Romanism well, with its worldwide efforts to propagate the Catholic faith now held together by a focus on the pope. Some of its characteristics include a strong hierarchy; a restriction of access to foundational texts like the Bible, the liturgy, and even theological texts; a folk piety that celebrated feasts, the “Sacred Heart,” and Marian devotions; and an expansionistic faith opposed to toleration of sects and supportive of conversions. As time went on, the Romanists lost ground to the Gallicanism, as promoted by the likes of Louis XIV of France. At this time the word ultramontanism came into parlance, as national church identities revived and the enthusiasm of the Protestants waned. All this changed with the French Revolution, when the monarchy and its Gallican agents were deposed. Again, the need for a strong papacy was felt, giving birth to the next phase called neo-ultramontanism. Many Catholics believed that the French Revolution’s anticlericalism and godless ideology were a direct result of the Protestant reformation as intensifi ed later by the Enlightenment. This phase witnessed at times fl irtation with liberal ideals of democracy among the laity, but with the revolutions of 1848, ultramontanism became soundly autocratic in its support of the papacy. Pope Pius IX led the Catholic Church into the fi rst Vatican I Council and rejected not only Gallicanism but all forms of liberal Catholicism. Among the ultramontanist positions it adopted were an emphasis on the juridical role of the pope over his supernatural role, more emotional devotions toward such things as the Blessed Sacrament and the Virgin Mary, a focus on Marian apparitions and pilgrimages, and attention on the centralized and authoritative church under the pope. U Between Vatican I and Vatican II, ultramontanism was effectively synonymous with orthodox Catholicism. Today the victory is so complete that the term has largely fallen out of usage. Further reading: Klaus Schatz, S. J. Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Book; The Liturgical Press, 1996; von Arx, Jefery. Varieties of Ultramontanism. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1997. Mark F. Whitters Urabi revolt in Egypt The Urabi revolt was a nationalist-led movement that led to the British occupation of Egypt in 1882. When Ismail was forced to step down as khedive, Tewfi k, a weak pro-British ruler, replaced him in 1879. Under the Caisse de la Dette, government revenues went to repay the enormous debts Ismail’s overly ambitious building schemes had incurred. This resulted in economic hardships, particularly in the agricultural sector where most Egyptians worked as peasant, or fellaheen, farmers. Cutbacks in military expenditures led to public discontent in the army that fueled nationalist sentiments. Secret nationalist societies were also formed. In 1880 army offi cers led by Ahmed Urabi drew up a petition listing their grievances, particularly failures to pay their salaries in a timely fashion The offi - cers also forestalled their possible arrest on the orders of Tewfi k by storming the war ministry. In 1881 Urabi accompanied with a large group of demonstrators gathered outside Abdin Palace in Cairo, where Urabi presented the demands to Tewfi k. Flanked by the English fi nancial controller, Tewfi k met with Urabi and agreed to the demands that included the writing of a new constitution. A negotiated settlement was reached through the intermediary efforts of Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, an English aristocrat and traveler. A new constitution and parliament were duly formed. To Tewfi k’s displeasure, the parliament demanded control over Egypt’s fi nances, and Urabi was made defense minister. In London, British offi cials felt it was time to formalize British control in Egypt. Riots in Alexandra caused widespread panic among the Europeans living in the city and resulted in a number of deaths in 1882. The British used the riots as an excuse to move ships into Alexandria’s harbor. They then demanded that Urabi, who was in actual control of the government, to halt all military preparations. When Urabi predictably refused, the British bombarded the city and landed troops. The British defeated the Egyptian army in a surprise attack at the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir and within a day had occupied Cairo. Urabi surrendered and was subsequently tried for treason. Blunt, who opposed the British occupation, arranged for Urabi’s defense by English counsel, but the verdict was a foregone conclusion. Fearing that Urabi might become a martyr to the nationalist cause if he were executed, the British arranged for his exile to Ceylon. Urabi was permitted to return in 1901 to Egypt, where he lived in virtual anonymity until his death in 1911. After some debate, the British government decided to retain its control over the Egypt, and the British were to remain a major political and military power in Egypt until a military-led revolution in 1952. See also British occupation of Egypt. Further reading: Berdine, Michael D. The Accidental Tourist, Wildrid Scawen Blunt, and the British Invasion of Egypt in 1882. London: Routledge, 2005; Blunt, Wilfrid Scawen. Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1922; Cole, Juan R. I. Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt’s ‘Urabi Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993; Rowlatt, Mary. Founders of Modern Egypt. London: Asia Publishing House, 1962. Janice J. Terry Uruguay, creation of Uruguay is a buffer state sandwiched between the two giants of South America—Argentina and Brazil. During the colonial period, Spain and Portugal fought over control of the area, and their former respective colonies, Argentina and Brazil, later took over the quarrel. The fi rst Spaniard in what is now Uruguay was Juan Díaz de Solís, when he explored the Río de la Plata. His death at the hands of Indians set the stage for a twocentury- long struggle after the western shore of Buenos Aires across the estuary was settled in 1580; Uruguay did not receive permanent settlements. For a time some Jesuits attempted religious missions and faced opposition from the Charruas, the fi erce tribe who occupied the area that became Uruguay. The native population was not subdued and was instead essentially eliminated 424 Urabi revolt, Egypt by 1800. There were no permanent settlements by the Spaniards in the 17th century. Into this vacuum came the Portuguese. Having been under Spanish rule between 1580 and 1640, and not formally independent until 1667, the Portuguese wanted to make up for lost time, especially in their largest colony of Brazil. In 1688 the Portuguese began a colony called appropriately Colonia in what is now northern Uruguay. They based their claim on the Treaty of Tordesillas and the papal bull of 1494, which gave Portugal claim to Brazil. The Portuguese argued that the territory was an extension of Brazil, specifi cally its province Rio Grande do Sol (the area around São Paulo) that resembled what is present-day Uruguay in terms of climate and topography. The Spanish countered when they established Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay, on the eastern shore of Uruguay. Colonia was taken and retaken several times in the ensuing century as Spain and Portugal struggled over the territory between the Río de la Plata and the Uruguay River, which came to be called the Banda Oriental del Uruguay, on the eastern shore of Uruguay. When the War of Independence began in 1810, a native of Uruguay, Artigas, took control of the independence movement of the Spanish provinces of the Plata region, such as Buenos Aires and Cordova (the heart of modern-day Argentina). With his power, he was able to propose a federal system of all of the Plata provinces, which included the autonomy of the Banda Oriental. In 1816 the Portuguese, still in possession of Brazil, invaded the country on the pretext of trying to restore order. The people of the Banda, or Uruguay as the province came to be called, had become independent Plaza de Constitution in the capital of Montevideo, Uruguay, at the turn of the century. Located between Argentina and Brazil, Uruguay has been a buffer state between its more powerful neighbors. Uruguay, creation of 425 and resisted the Portuguese for four years until they were fi nally overcome. By 1825 the Portuguese had withdrawn from Brazil, and Uruguay again assumed its independence and, with Argentine aid, obtained it after a war with Brazil formally ended by the Treaty of Montevideo in 1828. This became reality in 1830 when a republic was established. Uruguay was aided by the turmoil existing in Brazil during the minority of Don Pedro before 1841. In addition, Brazil was struggling to overcome the secession attempt of Rio Grande do Sol. After 1830 Argentina, under Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Buenos Aires, was the threat to Uruguay as it sought to unite all the Plata provinces under its leadership. The country kept its integrity through the military and naval successes of Garibaldi at San Antonio and Cerro were successful in safeguarding the independence of Uruguay, ironically with some Brazilian aid in the 1840s. From 1843 to 1851 allies of Rosas blockaded Montevideo, but by 1851 the siege had ended. By that date, Argentina and Brazil accepted the independent existence of Uruguay as long as the other party did not control it. Uruguay was the result of the balance of power between the two giants. See also Brazil, independence to republic in; Latin America, economic and political liberalism in. Further reading: Bushnell, David, and Neill Macaulay. The Emergence of Latin America in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988; Hanson, S.. Utopian Uruguay. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938; Hudson, W. H. The Purple Land. London: Three Sires Press, 1917; Knobel, J. Uruguay. London: Macmillan Press, 1911; Langley, Lester D. The Americas in the Age of Revolution, 1750– 1850. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. Norman C. Rothman Usman Dan Fodio (1754–1817) West African reformer Usman Dan Fodio, also known by the Hausa honorifi c shehu (sheikh), was a West African scholar and religious reformer of the Fulani ethnic group who led a successful early 19th-century Islamic jihad in Hausaland, modern-day northern Nigeria. The jihad led to the establishment of the Sokoto Caliphate, the most signifi cant 19th-century independent African state, with regard to both size and impact on the local region’s history. Usman Dan Fodio was born in 1754 at Maratta within the Hausa state of Gobir but spent his formative years in the town of Degel. His father was a learned member of the Qadiriyya Sufi order and provided Usman and his brother Abdulahi with the highest Islamic education available to them. In the traditional Islamic manner, he traveled throughout Hausaland and as far away as the Saharan city of Agadez, studying under various teachers. At around age 20, he became an itinerant preacher and teacher while still completing his studies. In Degel, he quickly gained a following of devoted disciples, which encouraged him to travel to other Hausa states, where he met with further success in attracting students. Emboldened, he and his followers began calling on the nominal Muslim rulers in Hausaland to accept and practice orthodox Islam and remove non-Islamic customs and rituals from their courts. Dan Fodio went further and called into question the local rulers’ taxation and enslavement of his Fulani brethren, as well as the arbitrary confi scation of peasant property. The shehu’s growing following and the social and political arguments he raised put him at odds with much of the ruling class in Hausaland. Thus, he was forced to fl ee Degel when the sultan of Gobir sent forces against him. In 1804 the shehu and his followers regrouped. He was named amir al-mumineen, or commander of the faithful, and announced a call for a jihad campaign against Gobir. Years prior to this call, the shehu had had a series of visions in which he believed that the prophet Muhammad and Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, founder of the Qadiriyya order, instructed him to pick up the “Sword of Truth” in order for his followers to defend themselves from increasingly hostile rulers. Filled with conviction and fervor, an army of inferiorly armed Fulani scholars, clansmen, and Hausa peasants set forth to destroy the larger, better-equipped army of the sultan of Gobir. The shehu never led an army nor fought in a battle; his role was purely spiritual and consultative. He left the military campaigning to his generals, including his brother Abdullahi and son Muhammadu Bello. The shehu’s forces won a series of decisive battles and within four years had gained control of almost all of Hausaland and much of neighboring Bornu. From this amalgamation of lands was created the Sokoto Caliphate. In 1812 the shehu split rule of the Sokoto Caliphate between Abdullahi and Muhammadu Bello, and he withdrew into a scholarly and spiritual life. He continued teaching and writing but remained distant from the political dealings within the caliphate. 426 Usman Dan Fodio A key element throughout Dan Fodio’s reform movement was his writings. He authored more than 100 works in both his native Fulfulde and Arabic; some of his works were later translated into Hausa but were not originally written in that language. Most works were prose, but a substantial portion were in verse. One of his early works clarifi ed that anyone who subscribed to the religion and carried out their religious duties was a Muslim and deserved all rights and freedoms to be afforded to the brethren, including slaves who were Muslim. This was not the traditional practice in Hausaland at the time, which allowed for lower-class Muslims to be enslaved. Some of his most important works were written during the jihad, which established the ground rules for warfare and defi ned those who were to be considered Muslim (nontargets of jihad) and those who were non- Muslims (targets of jihad). This was important, since all of the leaders the jihad was directed against were at least nominally Muslim. However, Dan Fodio made clear that if rulers allowed non-Muslim practices in their lands or deviated from strict orthodoxy, they were legitimate targets of his campaign. In this regard, he drew from a controversial discussion some three centuries earlier between Askia Muhammad Touré, ruler of the Songhai Empire, and the scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Karim al-Maghili, when the former was expanding the holdings his empire into some areas having nominal Muslim rulers, including Hausaland. After the jihad was completed and the Sokoto Caliphate established, the shehu’s works showed moderation and more tolerance of non-Islamic practices occurring within state boundaries. Usman Dan Fodio died in the capital city of Sokoto in April 1817, leaving a legacy of 37 children and hundreds of grandchildren who continued to be important players in the political, social, and religious landscape of Sokoto for generations. This included his daughter Asma’u, a prolifi c writer and important chronicler of the jihad and the development of Sokoto. Usman Dan Fodio’s ideas for Islamic reformation in West Africa remained infl uential well into the late 19th century, manifesting themselves in the continued spread of Islam and sporadic calls to jihad. Further reading: Boyd, Jean. The Caliph’s Sister: Nana Asma’u, 1793–1865, Teacher, Poet, and Islamic Leader. London: F. Cass, 1989; Hiskett, Mervyn. The Sword of Truth: The Life and Times of the Shehu Usuman Dan Fodio. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1994; Johnston, H. A. S. The Fulani Empire of Sokoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967; Last, Murray. The Sokoto Caliphate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 1967; Sulaiman, Ibraheem. A Revolution in History: The Jihad of Usman Dan Fodio. London: Mansell, 1986. Brent D. Singleton

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

Ubico y Castañeda, Jorge (1878–1946) Guatemalan president The president of Guatemala from 1931 until 1944, Jorge Ubico y Castañeda was one of the major political fi gures in Central America, inheriting the caudillo, or “strongman,” tradition from predecessors such as Manuel Estrada Cabrera. Jorge Ubico was born on November 10, 1878, the son of Arturo Ubico, a wealthy lawyer and an active member of the Guatemala Liberal Party. There is a tradition that his surname came from the English name Wykam, and the family originated in Dorsetshire. Jorge Ubico was educated in Guatemala and then studied in the United States and in Europe. In 1897 Ubico was commissioned second lieutenant in the Guatemalan army; he was subsequently gazetted lieutenant colonel and then became a full colonel in 1916 at the age of 28. He had already gained a formidable reputation for rooting out banditry and smuggling over the Guatemalan-Mexican border. In 1920 he returned to Guatemala City to take part in the coup d’état that propelled General José Orellana into power. Orellana rewarded Ubico by making him a general two years later. However, in 1923, Ubico resigned from the army, disillusioned by what Orellana had been doing. Deciding to enter politics, Ubico helped form the Political Progressive Party in 1926. A liberal, he campaigned to improve the lot of poor people in Guatemala. He worked in various parts of Guatemala and became the chief of staff of the armed forces and then minister of war before, on February 14, 1931, becoming president for a six-year term of offi ce. His election was unopposed and unanimous. The Guatemalan constitution at the time had a clause forbidding reelection, and this would normally have meant that he would have had to step down in 1936. However, the constitution was amended, and Ubico remained in offi ce until July 4, 1944. Essentially, he was the dictator of the country, presiding over an authoritarian regime. Ubico’s political allies became known as the “Ubiquatas,” and they quickly took over the running of the country. To raise Guatemala’s foreign revenue, Ubico concentrated on the production of coffee, but the worldwide Great Depression caused major fi nancial problems. In spite of this Ubico was able to massively extend the network of roads throughout the country and improve health and educational facilities. He also passed decrees abolishing debt slavery and introduced strict vagrancy laws, which saw all Guatemalans given identity cards for the purpose of enforcing employment. Many were forced to work on banana plantations for very low wages, and the fact that they could leave did not mean that they could fi nd another job. As the depression eroded the income that Guatemala was earning, Ubico became more pro–United States. Under his presidency, the United Fruit Company became the major economic force in the country, coming to dominate many sectors of the economy, not just the growing and harvesting of bananas. It operated the telegraph system, the only railway in the country, its own electricity generators, and the port of Puerto Barrios on the Atlantic seaboard. U Throughout the period when Ubico ran Guatemala, he was determined to ensure that his government did not become corrupt and was said to have pored over the account books of government departments throughout the country. He also let it be known that anyone found guilty of corruption was to be instantly punished. His father had promised to shoot him if Ubico was ever involved in corruption himself. However, detractors pointed out that he did not need to be involved in graft. His salary as president was U.S. $120,000 a year—at that time the U.S. president was being paid $75,000 annually. The Guatemalan congress also once met and voted him $160,000 ex gratia payment for services to the country. Ubico also ensured strong press censorship in the country. On a personal level he was interested in radios and broadcasting, and he regularly made speeches on the radio. A strong ally of the United States, Ubico was a fi rm anticommunist. During World War II Ubico was a keen supporter of the Allies and was distrustful of the large German minority in the country. Guatemala did eventually declare war on Germany on December 9, 1941. After 1939 his regime became more unpopular, with the president reacting harshly in paranoid fear of his political opponents. A general strike in June 1944 led to his resignation. He was replaced by General Jorge Ponce Vaides on July 4, and a military coup on October 20, 1944, swept away his entire regime. He fl ed to the United States and died on June 14, 1946, in New Orleans, Louisiana. Further reading: Grieb, Kenneth J. Guatemalan Caudillo: The Regime of Jorge Ubico 1931–1944. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1979; Gunther, John. Inside Latin America. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1942. Justin Corfi eld Union of South Africa The southern regions of Africa were colonized by the Dutch (Boers), who moved inland after the British capture of the area around the Cape of Good Hope in 1806. The discoveries of diamonds and gold in the region during the late 19th century prompted a wave of European immigration, especially by the British, and led to increased oppression of the indigenous people. The Boers resented the growing numbers of settlers and tried to drive them out. As a result, British troops were sent to fi ght the Boer War. In the end Britain gained control of several territories on the southern tip of Africa. Eight years after the Boer War, four of Britain’s territories became the Union of South Africa, uniting through a constitution that allowed each state to maintain its current franchise qualifi cations and issuing in the apartheid that was to continue until the 1990s. The union comprised Cape Colony, Natal, Orange River Colony, and Transvaal. It had taken almost a decade to reach a compromise on the constitution. The Dutch Afrikaners were still a powerful force in the area; in fact, Louis Botha and Jan Christiaan Smuts, generals from Kruger’s army, were infl uential in the design of the new government. Each of the four territories wanted to maintain as much autonomy as possible, while Britain wanted a unifi ed country that could be self-supporting and maintain its own defense. In addition, there were many, including a number of black and white liberal leaders, who felt that the racial separation embedded in the constitution was unacceptable.The constitution that was approved legally recognized apartheid by allowing each of the four states to establish its own policy and required the approval of a two-thirds majority of parliament to effect changes. The constitution also established a British style of government and designated both English and Dutch as offi cial languages. Stipulations allowing for the future incorporation of other British territories into the union were also included. In 1915 South Africa captured Southwest Africa (Namibia) from the Germans. This territory was placed under union rule by the League of Nations after World War I. In May 1910 Botha became the prime minister, and Smuts became his deputy. The racial mix of the population was approximately 68 percent African, 21 percent white, 8 percent colored, and 3 percent Indian. In spite of their minority in the general population, whites controlled the government and enacted a number of laws that further denied rights to the majority. In 1911 three signifi cant acts contributed to the legalization of racial discrimination. The Native Labour Regulation Act made it a criminal offense for an African, but not for a white, to break a labor contract. The Mines and Work Act legalized the practice of employing Africans in only semiskilled and unskilled jobs. The Dutch Reformed Church Act of the same year prohibited Africans’ becoming members, disallowing Africans full participation in the state-established church. The most devastating obstruction to racial equality, however, came in 1913 with the passage of the Natives Land Act. This law, which designated the land areas that could be 392 Union of South Africa owned by separate races, gave over 92 percent of the land to the white population. In addition, the legislation made it illegal for blacks to live outside their own lands unless employed by whites as laborers. Black South Africans had been organizing in opposition to discrimination and were not silent during these years. The African Political Organization was formed in 1902 in Cape Town, elected Abdullah Abdurahman its president in 1904, and had grown to 20,000 strong by 1910. The years immediately before the ratifi cation of the constitution were fi lled with protests and demonstrations, and in March 1909 a massive South African Native Convention charged those writing the constitution to give all races equal rights. In 1912 educated leaders of the African population gathered in Bloemfontein to discuss means of protesting discrimination and establishing civil rights for all citizens. Many of these leaders had been educated in England and the United States and believed that the continent had benefi ted from Western infl uences, especially Christianity. Although the congress did not call for an end to British authority, it was fully committed to bringing about an end to the systematic inequality in South Africa in a nonviolent manner. John Dube, the fi rst president, believed that they could rely on the “sense of common justice” that was part of the British character. However, Britain was not willing to interfere. A delegation from the Native Congress traveled to England in 1914 to protest the Natives Land Act. They were told by the colonial secretary that there was nothing he could do. In 1919 another group of representatives met in London with Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who said that this was a problem that would have to be dealt with in South Africa. Union of South Africa 393 A scene from Maritzburg, South Africa, in the early 1900s. As the apartheid system continued, nonwhites received only the most basic education, could not socialize with whites, could live only in specifi cally designated areas, and had virtually no voice in government. As the apartheid system continued, nonwhites received only the most basic education, could not socialize with whites, and had virtually no voice in government. In addition, they were required to carry “pass books” that contained records of their movements outside their designated areas. In 1948 apartheid laws were enacted that created 10 “homelands,” or Bantustans, where black ethnic groups could live under self-rule but were still under the authority of the central government. The Population Registration Act of 1950 further tightened the bands of discrimination by requiring that every person in South Africa register as a member of one of three racial groups: white, black (African), or colored (of mixed descent). The government assigned blacks and coloreds to one of the homelands. Political rights were restricted to the homeland. In this way the government of South Africa hoped to designate nonwhites as citizens of the homeland and not citizens of South Africa, keeping their control of the nation. In essence, nonwhites became aliens in their own country. In 1931 the Union of South Africa was recognized as an independent nation within the commonwealth of nations, and in 1961 it gained full independence. In 1994 a black majority was fi nally elected to parliament, and apartheid was abolished. Further reading: Ross, Robert. A Concise History of South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Wilson, Monica, and Leonard Thompson, eds. The Oxford History of South Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Jean Shepherd Hamm United Auto Workers Offi cially, the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) is called the United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America International Union. It is one of North America’s largest unions, with 950 locals in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico and 700,000 members. It was founded in Detroit, Michigan, in May 1935 as an American Federation of Labor (AFL) union. In 1935 the crafts-oriented American Federation of Labor succumbed to years of demands that it be more aggressive in organizing by industry, not by trade. A caucus of industrial unions under the leadership of John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers formed the Committee of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Within a year the AFL suspended the CIO unions, leading them to form the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The UAW was one of the fi rst to organize black workers. Black and white UAW members staged the Flint sit-down strike that began on December 30, 1936, and ended in February 1937 after Michigan governor Frank Murphy mediated and won GM recognition of the UAW. In March Chrysler workers sat down and won recognition of the UAW. Next to organize was Ford Motor Company, where Henry Ford had vowed that the UAW would organize his workers over his dead body. Harry Bennett got the job of repulsing the union. He set up the Ford Service Department to provide internal security, espionage, and intimidation of union organizers and sympathizers. The UAW fought Bennett and Ford until 1941, when Ford fi nally accepted collective bargaining with the UAW. In December 1941, after Pearl Harbor, the UAW executive board enacted a no-strike pledge, and the membership later affi rmed the pledge. After nearly a decade of political infi ghting between conservatives and progressives in the UAW, the social democrat Walter Reuther became president and held the position for nearly 25 years. His presidency coincided with the peak years of U.S. unionism. Walter Reuther led the UAW as part of the liberal democratic alliance that brought signifi cant improvement to millions of Americans in fulfi llment of the promise of the United States. Reuther sought to establish labor as the equal of management and government. He fought to give UAW workers a say over working conditions. Reuther also made the UAW a bureaucratically effi cient organization. He surrendered political independence and became a stalwart backer of Lyndon B. Johnson and liberal causes. His dreams fell short as the Democrats split over the Vietnam War and domestic issues and proved unable to complete the promises of the Great Society. After Reuther died in 1970, the UAW had a series of presidents, none of whom matched his success or tenure. They included Leonard Woodcock, Douglas Fraser, Owen Bieber, Stephen Yokich, and Ron Gettelfi nger. Further reading: Barnard, John. American Vanguard: The United Auto Workers during the Reuther Years, 1935–1970. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2004; Chinoy, Ely. Automobile Workers and the American Dream. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992. John H. Barnhill 394 United Auto Workers United Front, fi rst (1923–1927) and second (1937–1941) The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 had two major impacts on China: establishment of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1921 and reorganization of the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), in 1923. The result was the formation of the fi rst (in retrospect) United Front. The Japanese invasion of China in 1937 led to the second United Front. Sun Yat-sen, father of the Chinese Republic, and his Nationalist Party were out of power as warlords carved up China after 1913. Sun was living in Shanghai in 1919 when patriotic students rose up to demand government reforms in the May Fourth Movement. To tap into student patriotism and learn the formula of Soviet success, Sun met Soviet representative to China Adolf Joffe. Their joint communiqué (January 23, 1923) became the basis for the fi rst United Front. It provided for Soviet aid to reorganize the KMT, and in return Sun agreed to allow members of the CCP to join the KMT as individuals. It also declared that Sun’s Three People’s Principles, not Marxism, would be the ideology for China. A political change allowed Sun to form an opposition government (to the recognized one in Beijing) in Canton later in 1923. Soviet political and military advisers, headed by Michael Borodin and General Galen (Blucher), arrived in Canton. Borodin dominated the fi rst KMT Congress, held in Canton in 1924, where the platform mandated alliance with the Soviet Union and collaboration with the CCP that allowed CCP leaders to join the KMT’s top councils. Sun sent his chief military aide, Chiang Kaishek, to Russia to study Soviet military techniques. Chiang returned home to head the new Whampoa Military Academy, which trained offi cers in warfare and political ideology. The fi rst United Front survived Sun’s death in 1925 and the fi rst phase of the successful Northern Expedition to unify China, led by Chiang. After capturing Shanghai and Nanjing (Nanking) in 1927 Chiang purged the Communists from the government and expelled the Soviet advisers, preempting Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s plans to eliminate the KMT and catapult the CCP to power. Thus ended the fi rst United Front. Chiang went on to complete the Northern Expedition and unify China in 1928. Negotiations for a second United Front began in 1937 as a result of rising public sentiment that all Chinese civil wars should end and that the KMT should lead a united China in resisting Japanese aggression. The movement was begun by students in 1935, picked up by the CCP, and then hard pressed by KMT forces at the end of the Long March. Japan attacked China on July 7, 1937 (the Marco Polo Bridge incident). The all-out war ensured the negotiations, which concluded in September 1937. The agreement provided for two separate Communist armies: the Eighth Route Army of 20,000 men in northern China under commander Zhu De (Chu Teh) and the 10,000-man New Fourth Army in Jiangxi (Kiangsi) under Ye Ting (Yeh T’ing). Both units would fi ght under overall Nationalist command. The CCP agreed to abolish their Soviet government, cease class struggle in areas they controlled, and obey the Nationalist central government. However, the CCP goal was to exploit the United Front for expansion, as its leader Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) announced: “Our fi xed policy should be 70 percent expansion, 20 percent dealing with the Kuomintang, and 10 percent resisting Japan.” The United Front collapsed in January 1941 when the New Fourth Army disobeyed orders, and a major clash with KMT forces resulted. Negotiations between the two sides ended in 1943, and the confl ict between them remained unresolved at the end of World War II. See also Mancurian incident and Manchukuo; Sino- Japanese War; Xi’an incident. Further reading: Brandt, Conrad. Stalin’s Failure in China, 1924–1947. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958; Fairbank, John K., and Albert Feuenherker eds. Cambridge History of China, Part 2, Vol. 13, Republican China, 1912–1949. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986; Jacobs, Dan N. Borodin: Stalin’s Man in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981; Saich, Tony. Origins of the First United Front in China. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991; Van Slyke, Lyman P. Enemies and Friends: The United Front in Chinese Communist History. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967; Wilbur, Martin C. Missionaries of Revolution: Soviet Advisors and Nationalist China, 1920–1927. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur United Fruit Company United Fruit was one of the largest multinational companies in the early 20th century. In 1954 it lobbied the U.S. government to overthrow the elected government of Guatemala. Formed in 1898 by the merger United Fruit Company 395 of Boston Fruit Company and Tropical Trading and Transport Company, United Fruit dominated all aspects of the banana trade from Latin America to the United States. Because of this control the company was able to dictate terms and conditions regarding taxes and land purchases to the governments of Latin America. This began coming to an end after World War II. With the end of the war, workers unionized, and countries wanted more control of their resources. The harshest response to this trend was the coup that unseated the democratically elected government of Guatemala. United Fruit’s share of the banana market slid from 80 percent in 1950 to 34 percent in 1973. When United Fruit was founded in 1898, the two companies that merged brought mutually benefi cial resources to the merger. The Boston Fruit Company controlled banana sales along the northeast coast of the United States, had a fl eet of steamships, and owned land in the Caribbean. Tropical Trading and Transport Company owned land in South and Central America, had a railroad there, and controlled much of the sales of bananas along the southeast coast of the United States. The newly created company had control of the banana from growth to sale. The company used bribes and threats of U.S. government intervention in Latin American countries. The company also bought rival businesses to increase its control of the industry, and by the early 1900s, United Fruit controlled at least 8 percent of all banana imports in the United States. With the end of World War II, United Fruit began to have problems. One of these was Guatemala. The fi rst leftist government was elected by the people in 1951. The government, led by Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, wanted to develop a broader base for the economy, which included land reform. United Fruit and the U.S. government claimed that Arbenz was a communist. In 1953 the company supported a coup by a small part of the Guatemalan army, which the government was able to put down. Then, in 1954 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) got involved. Fearing the spread of communism, a fear shared by United Fruit, the CIA supported a coup against the government, which succeeded. Arbenz resigned his position, and Guatemala returned to rule by a right-wing dictator. The coup did not have the effect United Fruit had hoped for. President Dwight Eisenhower faced criticism from other nations over the CIA’s involvement in the coup. Then the U.S. Justice Department took United Fruit to court under the Sherman Anti-Trust and Wilson Acts because of its monopoly on the banana market. Ultimately, the company was forced to divest itself of part of its banana business and was prohibited from buying any other banana production companies. After the coup, United Fruit found that it was viewed with hostility by other Latin American countries. Workers’ rights were now being supported by local governments, which increased the costs United Fruit incurred to grow and harvest the bananas. In an attempt to improve its position, United Fruit began selling off land and buying more bananas from local producers. The company continued to move away from controlling the entire process of bringing the bananas to market and moved to diversify its business. Further reading: Bucheli, Mercelo. Bananas and Business: The United Fruit Company in Colombia, 1899–2000. New York: New York University Press, 2005; Josling, T. E., and T. G. Taylor, eds. Banana Wars: The Anatomy of a Trade Dispute. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing, 2003; Litvin, Daniel. Empires of Profi t: Commerce, Conquest and Corporate Responsibility. Mason, OH: Texere, 2003; McCann, Thomas P., and Henry Scammell, eds. An American Company: The Tragedy of United Workers at the United Fruit Company. The company dominated the banana trade from Latin America to the United States. 396 United Fruit Company Fruit. New York: Crown Publishing, 1976; Striffl er, Steve, and Mark Moberg. Banana Wars: Power, Production, and History in the Americas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. urbanization The term urbanization is commonly misused. Frequently and mistakenly, urbanization is employed to mean urban growth. When used correctly, however, urbanization refers to the increased degree of urban development within a region or a nation, that is, a defi ned geographical area, while urban growth, when used in its proper form, relates to the rate at which an urban area or urban population increases within a given timeframe relative to its size at the beginning of that time period. Furthermore, what makes urbanization different from urban growth is that urbanization has two marked urban features. The fi rst characteristic is that urbanization can be used to describe the proportion of a total area or total population in urban situations such as towns and cities. Second, the term refers to an increased urban proportion during a given timeframe relative to its size at the start of the defi ned chronological era. Irrespective of geographical location, the impact and effects of urbanization can be extremely troublesome. In Britain, for instance, although rapid urban growth and urbanization occurred beginning in the late 1800s and continued into the 1900s, its effects were still being felt in the 20th century. To illustrate this point, by as late as 1945 large parts of British cities contained poor-quality housing within which the laboring population resided, often in cramped conditions with few amenities. Furthermore, problems such as dirt, disease, and social deprivation can be exacerbated by urbanization, and such were the effects of urbanization that by as early as 1842 the British parliament debated its management due to its already perceived threat to national economic development. Consequently, the British embarked on a process of public health and new, privately built housing so as to make living conditions better. Importantly, by about 1900, this system had not only incorporated slum clearance but had expanded to such a degree as to include the arranging of the urban form, which in Britain became known as “town planning.” One of the largest infl uences on the increasing degree of urban development in a given place is industrialization, which has to some extent affected all the world’s continents. The process of social and economic change that leads a society to shift from a largely agrarian to an industrial nature began in 1700s England and was closely associated with the development of new technologies and business practices, particularly the application of power-driven machinery within factory units. Although it is not necessary to describe in detail the history and evolution of industrialization, it is necessary to emphasize that it has led to many fundamental changes within societies, including: • The rise of manufactured goods. • A decline in the signifi cance of the agricultural industrial sector. • A rise (per capita) in income. • Increased rates of urban growth. • Increases in population sizes as a result of changing birth and death rates. • Changes in social structures and the erosion of preindustrial social hierarchies. • A growth in the infl uence of towns and cities over their hinterland, that is, the land that borders an urban settlement. • The appearance of new lifestyles and attitudes, which may become apparent by infl uencing the composition of the political system. In many countries political systems have been reshaped as a result of urban development. • Environmental degradation in and around urban places, such the hinterland. This can mean the destruction of fl ora and the death of animals such as fi sh or woodland creatures due to increased levels of water or air pollution and the clearing of animal habitats to provide new land for urban construction as part of the process of suburbanization. • Marked levels of growth of preexisting urban problems, such as waterborne disease. • The erection of often large-sized districts of poorquality, overcrowded housing units in proximity to sources of employment. Regardless of the geographical location, a major effect of urbanization is lowering of the environmental quality. Even new housing can become subject to environmental degradation, which in time may in turn lead to its becoming a slum. With regard to the effects of urbanization, it would be wrong to assume that although the 1900s was a time of much social, cultural, and economic development, the effects of urbanization were less than in prior historic times. Indeed, in spite of the actual time when urban problems occur, their nature can still be powerful and urbanization 397 can have major repercussions for not only the quality of the environment but also the quality of people’s lives. Where problems affect large numbers of people throughout a region or a nation, the potential for social unrest is increased, and consequently those in positions of authority may have to respond to the threat by altering the nature of a nation’s political system. However, it is also important to comprehend that urban diffi culties arising from urban growth, especially rapid urban development, may infl uence the economic, social, and cultural values of a nation as well, and this can be expressed in many distinct ways. By way of example, the shifting nature of a society due to urbanization may result in both the changing appearance and the urban morphology of existing towns and cities. Furthermore, it may also lead to the swamping of existing administrative structures used to protect the urban environment, as problems like poverty, poor sanitation, dirt, disease, and overcrowding show. As a consequence of these and other problems, governments at both the local and national levels may be required to quickly establish new means to deal with urban problems so as to help improve the public’s quality of life. These effects have also been the source of academic research, and their study has led to the making of many urban study schools, such as the Chicago School of Urban Sociology in the 1930s. In time, though, the broadening of policies by governments can begin to include wider social and environmental measures, including the protection of land surrounding urban settlements, the establishment of national parks, and the creation of rigid systems of regulation relating to new urban development so that not only can the local ecology be protected but also urban dwellers as a right can enjoy a clean, healthy, and safe living environment, something that was once a privilege of the urban rich only. Global society has fundamentally changed since the rise of industrialization, which as noted previously fi rst occurred in Britain. One such change has been the altering of patterns of urbanization to such a degree that many of the world’s industrial societies are also predominantly urban societies. Urbanization has thus been a major global cultural change following the growth of the manufacturing industry in Europe. This urban development process has been fueled in many places by other changes, like the development of transportation technologies that have helped increase the distance between home and the workplace, and thus has led to signifi cant increases in the amount of suburbanization occurring throughout the world. The growth of transportation means like the tram, train, and car have, since the early 1900s, broken traditional relationships that existed between urban space and time as people have over time become increasingly able to commute from one urban district to another. In addition, government policies relating to the lowering of ticket prices for public transport systems in the metropolitan context have allowed people with less disposable fi nance to still have the freedom to live and work in places often a great distance from each other. However, as public transport has become more widely available to all social classes, it has consequently increased the urban sprawl of settlements and therefore the impact of the local place upon its surrounding environments. Further reading: Barth, Gunther Paul. Instant Cities: Urbanization and the Rise of San Francisco and Denver. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975; Hayden, D. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth 1820–2000. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003; Knox, Paul, and Linda McCarthy. Urbanization: An Introduction to Urban Geography. 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005; Wirth, Louis. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” American Journal of Sociology 44 (1938). Ian Morley

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Uganda (1950–present) The area known today as Uganda was part of the charter of the British East Africa Company in 1888, and was ruled as a protectorate in 1894. As more territory was added to the British claims, the boundaries of what now form Uganda took shape in 1914. It was ruled as a British protectorate until given autonomy in 1962. Apollo Milton Obote was prime minster of Uganda from 1962 to 1966 and state president from 1966 to 1971 and again from 1980 to 1985. Although he began his adult life as a schoolteacher, he is best known for leading Uganda to independence on October 9, 1962, in a relatively peaceful revolution. Prior to independence, Obote served on the Ugandan legislative council beginning in 1957, and in 1960 he founded the Ugandan People’s Congress. Obote created a political coalition with his rival, Sir Edward Mutesa, king of Buganda, in preparation for the peaceful handover of colonial power to indigenous black African rule. Obote used the position of his rival political leader to gain political favor in the region of Buganda. In a practical political move, Mutesa was installed as president with Obote as prime minister. As prime minister, Obote held formal state power in his hands. His nominally socialist rule after independence made him unpopular with Western states, particularly Britain. While the country was peaceful and economically stable, the period immediately following independence in Uganda was a difficult time for both Mutesa’s presidency and Obote’s prime ministership. At the time of independence, Uganda was the only peaceful nation in the region and it become a safe haven for refugees from Zaïre, Sudan, and Rwanda. This placed a huge drain on Uganda’s scarce resources and economy. This period also made it clear that Obote was not going to share power with coalition president Mutesa. This made confrontation inevitable. The trigger for confrontation was Obote’s indictment in a gold-smuggling plot with Idi Amin, then deputy of the Ugandan Armed Forces. Instead of complying with President Mutesa’s investigations, Obote suspended the Ugandan constitution under the power of his prime ministership, abolishing the role of the leaders of Uganda’s five tribal kingdoms, removing power from Mutesa, and giving himself unlimited emergency powers. The corrupt Ugandan judiciary cleared Obote of all charges of gold smuggling. The incident, however, incited Obote and his supporters to stage a coup against Mutesa in 1966. He then had himself installed as president on March 2. Obote’s first act as president was to have his attorney general, Godfrey Binaisa, rewrite the Ugandan constitution, transfer all powers to Obote’s presidency, and nationalize all foreign assets. Obote’s first presidency did not last long. In 1971 Obote was disposed by his army chief, Idi Amin, who had assisted him in overthrowing Mutesa fewer than 10 years prior. Obote fled to Tanzania with many of his supporters. After nine years in exile, Obote gathered Ugandan exiles in Tanzania and ousted Amin in 1979. In an attempt finally to gain Western support for his second presidency, Obote ordered that Uganda be ruled U by a presidential commission before democratic elections were to be held in 1980. Although Obote won the 1980 elections, his second rule was marked by civil war, further distancing him from Western approval. Believing the 1980 elections to be rigged, the opposition parties staged a guerrilla rebellion under Yoweri Museveni’s National Resistance Army. Obote was deposed in July 1985, again by his own army commander, Bazilio Okello, and General Tito Okello in a military coup. This time Obote fled to Zambia. Obote remained in southern Africa until his death on October 10, 2005, of kidney failure at a hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. Idi Amin is perhaps best known for ousting his predecessor, Apollo Milton Obote, and for instituting a totalitarian regime that would devastate Uganda both politically and economically. Amin’s rise to power began in January 1971, when President Obote headed off to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings in Singapore. Suspecting trouble, Obote left his staff with the order to have Amin and his supporters arrested upon his departure. On the morning of January 25, 1971, forces loyal to Amin stormed strategic military targets in Kampala and the airport in Entebbe. The first shells fired at Entebbe Airport killed two Roman Catholic priests, setting off a wave of violence throughout the country. Despite the initial disorganization on the part of Amin and his troops, they managed to carry out mass executions of pro-Obote troops and supporters. Obote chose exile in Tanzania. military dictatorship After assuming power, Amin repudiated Obote’s soft socialist foreign policy, resulting in Uganda’s recognition by Israel, Britain, and the United States. However, many African nations and organizations, including the Organization of African Unity, refused to recognize Amin and his military government. Nevertheless, Amin embraced the label “totalitarian” and renamed the government house the Command House, later instituting an advisory defense council composed of military commanders. In an attempt to place Uganda under his military dictatorship, he extended military rule to his cabinet members, who, if not drawn from the military, were advised that they would be subjected to military discipline. Army commanders, with Amin’s blessing, acted like warlords, representing the coercive arm of the government. Foreign policy was revised again in 1972 so that the country could obtain financial assistance and technical support from Libya. In doing so, Amin expelled all remaining Israeli advisers and became anti-Israeli in accordance with Libyan policy. Amin went in search of foreign help in the form of monetary aid from Saudi Arabia. In doing so, Amin rediscovered Uganda’s previously neglected Islamic heritage. In attempts to recoup profits from lost Western foreign aide, Amin went on to expel the Asian minority in Uganda and seize their property. However, this appropriation proved disastrous for the already failing Ugandan economy, which was fueled by export crops. Yet the money from the sale of export crops was being recycled back into the purchase of imports for the army. As a result, rural farmers turned to smuggling from neighboring countries. This became an obsession for Amin toward the end of his rule. He went on to appoint his mercenary adviser, British citizen Bob Astles, to take all necessary steps to end the problem. The end of Amin’s rule also faced another problem— a counterattack from former Ugandan leader Obote. Amin feared this with good reason. Shortly after Amin expelled the Asian minority in 1972, Obote did attempt an attack into southern parts of Uganda. Although the attack was launched by a small contingent of only 27 army trucks, his ambition was to capture the strategic military post of Masaka near the border. Obote’s troops decided to settle in and wait for a general uprising against Amin, which did not occur. Obote also attempted a seizure of Entebbe Airport by allegedly hijacking an East African Airways flight out of Tanzania. The attempt failed to accomplish much when the pilot blew out the tires on the passenger plane, and the flight remained in Tanzania. Amin is internationally known for the hostage crisis at Entebbe Airport in June 1976, when Amin offered Palestinian hijackers of an Air France jet from Tel Aviv a protected base from which they could press their demands in exchange for the release of Israeli hostages. The dramatic rescue of the hostages by Israeli commandos was a severe blow to Amin. Amin’s rule is also marked by a number of disappearances of priests and ministers in the 1970s. The matter reached a climax with the formal protest against army terrorism and death squad activity in 1977 by Church of Uganda ministers, led by Archbishop Janani Luwum. In response to Luwum’s outspoken agenda against Amin’s violent domestic policies, it appears that Amin had Luwum assassinated. Although Luwum’s body was recovered from a clumsily contrived “auto accident,” subsequent investigations revealed that Luwum had been shot by Amin himself. This last in a long line of atrocities was greeted with international condemnation, but apart from the 434 Uganda (1950–present) continued trade boycott initiated by the United States in July 1978, verbal condemnation was not accompanied by action. Amin went on to claim that Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere—his perennial enemy, partially due to Nyerere’s acceptance of Obote after the coup—had been at the root of his troubles. Amin accused Nyerere of waging war against Uganda. Amin invaded Tanzanian territory and formally annexed a section across the Kagera River boundary on November 1, 1978. Declaring a formal state of war against Uganda, Nyerere mobilized his citizen army reserves and counterattacked, joined by Ugandan exiles united as the Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA). The Ugandan Army retreated steadily. Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi sent 3,000 troops to aid fellow Muslim Amin, but the Libyans soon found themselves on the front line. Tanzanian troops and the UNLA took Kampala in April 1979, aided by Obote, and Amin fled by air, first to Libya and later into permanent exile in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, where he died on August 16, 2003, after being in a coma for over a month. The current president of Uganda is Yoweri Museveni, who was elected in February 2006. Further reading: Avirgan, Tony. War in Uganda: The Legacy of Idi Amin. Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill, 1982; Hooper, Ed. Uganda. London: Minority Rights Group, 1989; Ingham, Kenneth. Obote: A Political Biography. London: Routledge, 1994; Mamdani, Mahmood. Imperialism and Fascism in Uganda. Nairobi: Heinemann, 1983. Rian Wall Ukraine Since 1991, Ukraine has been an independent state, the sovereignty of which is now recognized by all the countries of the world. Ukraine is one of the biggest European states (603,700 square kilometers). Ukraine has common borders with seven countries (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Russia, and Byelorussia), and the Black and Azov Seas are on its southern border. Ukraine consists of 24 regions (oblast) and the Crimea Autonomous Republic. The capital of Ukraine is Kiev. A Pan-Ukrainian population census in 2001 found the total number of inhabitants at 48,416,000. The majority are city inhabitants, and 32 percent live in the countryside. Over 100 ethnicities and nationalities are represented in contemporary Ukraine. Among them are Ukrainians, Russians, Belorussians, Moldavians, Crimean Tatars, and Bulgarians. Most of the population of Ukraine belongs to the Orthodox Christian Church. Striving for national and state independence was a key issue in Ukraine in the 20th century. This aspiration, partly realized during the hard days of 1917–20, remained potent political motivation for Ukrainians living all over the world. The democracy brought by Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika inspired ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union to activate national liberation movements. Revision of the Ukrainian nation historical past, promoted by representatives of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group of human rights activists; a rise in national identity supported and developed by artists, poets, writers, and scientists; and the people’s movement known as “meeting democracy” had created the necessary background for historical action. On July 16, 1990, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine, first among the republics of the former Soviet Union, adopted a declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine. The next step was a coup that took place in the Soviet Union on August 19–21, 1994, and that resulted in the pronouncement of the Act of State Independence of Ukraine by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Soon afterward the first elections were held for president of independent Ukraine (Leonid Kravchuk won and was president from 1991 to 1994), combined with an all- Ukrainian referendum for endorsement of the independence of Ukraine. Since that time a series of measures aimed at the organization of bodies and institutions necessary for an independent Ukraine have been undertaken. Some acts were compromises with the Russian Federation; because of the deep economic integration of both countries, it was hard to become separated at once. Issues included the state border between Ukraine and Russia in the Azov Sea; the presence of the Russian navy in Sevastopol in Crimea and the status of that city; and the problem of the frontier with Romania around Zmeinyi Island. Some others still remain only partially solved. On December 7–8, 1991, the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, and Belorussia signed a document denouncing the union treaty of 1922, according to which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been organized. A treaty establishing a Commonwealth of Independent States was signed instead. Since that time, Ukraine has been free to conduct its internal policy. During 1991–94 a series of democratic reforms were instituted in Ukraine, among which the most important were beginning a constitutional process, the improvement of the multiparty system, the formulation of basic Ukraine 43 5 principles of foreign policy and international cooperation, the formulation of a military doctrine, introduction of economic reforms, the elaboration of an ethnic policy, and the creation of relationships with the different churches represented in Ukraine. The presidential and parliamentary elections of 1994 opened a new phase in the political development of Ukraine. The keystone of the political history of Ukraine at that time was the adoption of a new constitution (June 28, 1996), a long and hard process that repeatedly caused political and parliamentary criss. It was the beginning of parliamentary and presidential opposition, which led to growing tension during Kuchma’s presidency in relation to the composition of parliament factions and their representation. The presidential elections of 2004 and the following Orange Revolution opened a new era in the political history of Ukraine, characterized by general democratization and liberalization of the political process. Ukrainians dissatisfied with officially announced results of the runoff election between presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovich and leader of the opposition Viktor Yuschenko demonstrated in the principal square of Kiev—the Maidan (Square) of Independence—and for several weeks people from various cities, towns, and villages in Ukraine marched for democracy, for their political rights, and for the possibility to make their political choices freely. orange revolution Representatives of different political parties and movements united their efforts in this process, and the Orange Revolution ended in a victory for democracy in Ukraine. A coalition government, with the participation of all “orange” parties and movements, was formed, with Julia Timoshenko as the first woman prime minister in the history of Ukraine. In local administrations, thousands of former functionaries of different levels have been replaced by “orange” democrats. New priorities in foreign policy, a tendency toward integration with the European Union (EU) and cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and reorientation of trade relationships have been elaborated. Nevertheless, as early as the beginning of September 2005, Julia Timoshenko’s government was dismissed, and it became clear that there were serious discrepancies among Orange Revolution leaders and representatives of different orange parties. Political reform that implies the transition of Ukraine from presidential to parliamentary republic was adopted by the parliament and became a point of serious discussion among “orange” revolutionaries, social democrats, representatives of the Party of Regions, and communists. The ideals of democracy and freedom still remain the essence of the Viktor Yuschenko presidency, as was shown by the first free parliamentary election in March 2006. Shortly after its independence, Ukraine faced problems during the transitional period of economic development from planned socialism to free-market forms. The destruction of traditional Soviet resources, marketing, and energetic and macroeconomic networks, along with the extreme difficulty of creating new ones in the European community, and the urgent need for modernization of basic equipment and production techniques, negatively influenced the general state and the prospects of further development of the economy of Ukraine. A so-called shadow economy sprang up and grew rapidly with substantial support from the highest administration of Ukraine, which appeared to be corrupt. Inflation, accompanied by a decrease in purchasing power, indicated that the standard of living of Ukrainians decreased to a crucial level, creating a need for the state administration to finance a series of social programs. Pension reform, changes in support for families with low income, support for veterans of World War II, and many other social actions were undertaken. Broad-scale raising of salaries, stipends, and pensions began in 2004 under the government headed by Viktor Yanukovich on the eve of presidential elections. The new president of Ukraine, Viktor Yuschenko, and his ministries consequently instituted a series of social programs aimed at improving the standard of living. A series of economic reforms, including the introduction of new currency, privatization in agriculture and industry, promotion of national producers and national product exportation, searches for new investments and new sources of power supply abroad, and cooperation with the World Bank, gradually contributed to a general slow growth of the Ukrainian economy after 2000. The creation of a new macroeconomic network, tending toward integration with the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), is the principal strategic goal proclaimed by President Yuschenko. The organization of an independent state of Ukraine led to a new trend in the development of the ideology and culture of the country, connected with the formation of the ideas of national unity and ethnic and national self-identification. The process of national memory revival, studies of the cultural and historical past of the Ukrainian nation, rediscovering cultural heritage, the revival of the folk culture of national minorities, 436 Ukraine and the establishment of fruitful connections with the Ukrainian diaspora are key aspects of the cultural development of Ukraine in the new millenium. One of the sharpest debates in the context of cultural development is the discussion of an official language of Ukraine. It was demonstrated in the presidential election of 2004 and the parliamentary election of 2006 that a strong Russian-speaking opposition still exists in Ukraine. The activation of religious life in independent Ukraine after the dismantling of a totalitarian ideology brought a series of conflicts, first of all among representatives of different branches of Orthodox Christianity. As stated by the constitution of Ukraine, the nonobligatory character of any religion creates the background necessary for religious pluralism and freedom of people’s consciousness. See also Soviet Union, dissolution of the. Further reading: Dyczok, M. Ukraine: Movement Without Change, Change Without Movement. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 2000; Hal’chyns’kyi, A. Pomarancheva revoliutsiia i nova vlada [Orange revolution and new power]. Kyïv: Lybid, 2005; Kuzio, T., ed. Contemporary Ukraine: Dynamics of Post-Soviet Transformation. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998; Pogrebinskii, M. Oranzhevaia” revoliutsiia: versii, khronika, dokumenty [Orange revolution: versions, chronicles, documents]. Kiev: Optima, 2005; Szporluk, R. Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union. Stanford, Ca: Hoover Institution Press, 2000. Olena V. Smyntyna United Arab Emirates (UAE) The United Arab Emirates (UAE), an oil-rich Arab country, is located on the southeast side of the Arabian Peninsula. This country, bordering Oman and Saudi Arabia, comprises seven emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al-Khaymah, Shariqah, and Um Al Qaywayn. Formerly known as the Trucial States, a term dating from the 19th-century agreement between British and Arab leaders, the UAE was created when six of the emirates merged in 1971; Ras al-Khaymah joined in 1972. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan served as president from the country’s founding until his death in 2004. His son, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, succeeded as president. The Supreme Council comprises the individual rulers of the seven emirates, and the president and vice president are elected by the council every five years. The position of the presidency is an unofficial hereditary post for the Al Nahyan family. The council also elects the Council of Ministers and an appointed Federal National Council reviews legislation. The federal court system includes all the emirates except Dubai and Ras Al-Khaymah. All of the emirates have a mix of secular law and sharia (Islamic law) with civil, criminal, and high courts. The UAE is a member of the United Nations and the Arab League, and has diplomatic relationships with more than 60 countries. It plays a moderate role in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The UAE plays a vital role in the affairs of the region because of its massive foreign development and moderate foreign policy positions. Unlike its neighbors, the UAE, under the leadership of Sheikh Zayed, promotes religious tolerance. Sheikh Zayed also encouraged foreign development and investment. The UAE is one of the largest producers of oil, after Saudi Arabia and Iran, in the Middle East. Since its formation, the UAE has transformed from an impoverished desert country to a modern, wealthy country. Zayed invested the country’s oil revenues in hospitals, schools, and universities and gave all citizens free and universal access to these public services. He distributed free land and held majlis (traditional Arab consultation councils) that were open to the public. Zayed was a contemporary liberal who advocated for women’s rights and for the education and participation of women in the work force. Education was one of the most significant achievements in the rapid transformation of the UAE. The country boasts numerous universities and colleges and hundreds of schools. Further reading: Anthony, John Duke. Arab States of the Lower Gulf: People, Politics, Petroleum. Washington, DC: Middle East Institute, 1975; Peck, Malcolm C. The United Arab Emirates: A Venture in Unity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986; Vine, Peter, and Paula Casey. United Arab Emirates: Profile of a Country’s Heritage and Modern Development. London: Immel, 1992. Julie Eadeh United Arab Republic (UAR) The United Arab Republic, a union of Egypt and Syria, lasted from 1958 to 1961. As Syrian political parties on United Arab Republic (UAR) 437 the left and right vied for power, Syria became enmeshed in a cycle of political instability and short-lived coalition governments. The Ba’ath party, under pressure from the Syrian Communist Party, was instrumental in approaching Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt to propose a union between the two Arab nations early in 1968. Recognizing the difficulties posed by the lack of a contiguous border, with Israel between them, and the political and economic differences between the two countries, Nasser was reluctant to join such a union. The Ba’athists, who mistakenly thought they would control the direction of the union from behind the scenes, convinced Nasser to become the leader of the union. A February 1958 plebiscite on the union received nearly unanimous support from the citizens of both Egypt and Syria, and the union was implemented in late February. The Yemeni imam, or ruler, also joined the union, but Yemen was never fully integrated into the UAR. Nasser served as president, and the Syrian leader Shukri al-Quwatli became vice president, but the real power rested with Egypt, which was by far the larger, more populous, and more powerful of the two nations. Shortly after the establishment of the UAR, Nasser made a tumultuous tour of Syria, where he received overwhelming popular support. It was the apogee of pan- Arabism, but the honeymoon was short-lived. Under the terms of the union all Syrian political parties were dissolved, although the Ba’ath Party had anticipated that it would play a key role. In addition, Egyptian political and economic policies, including land reform, were instituted. Although health services and conditions for the working and urban middle classes improved the Syrian upper class, many Ba’athists and the military grew increasingly disenchanted with Nasser. Initially Nasser’s close associate General Abd al-Hakim Amer was appointed to oversee the government in Syria, but by 1960 the former Syrian interior minister, Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, became the strongman within the administration. Syrians chafed under his heavy-handed rule. The UAR also faced considerable opposition from conservative Arab regimes and Western nations, especially the United States. To counter Nasser’s growing strength, the Hashemite monarchs in Jordan and Iraq announced a union between their two nations, but it was never really implemented. Saudi Arabia was also opposed to the union and feared the political shift toward the left. The United States viewed the union through the prism of the cold war and was determined to prevent possible Soviet expansion into the region. The civil war in Lebanon and the revolution in Iraq, both in 1958, accentuated the rivalries between the progressive, leftist Arab regimes dominated by Nasser and the conservative monarchies in what has been called the Arab cold war. The West blamed Nasser for both the Lebanese civil war and the Iraqi revolution. Although Nasser supported both, he was not primarily responsible for either. The nationalization of banks and many large businesses in the summer of 1961 created a form of state socialism that was unpopular in Syria. In reaction, army officers led a coup in September 1961 to withdraw from the union, and Nasser reluctantly agreed to the breakup. Nasser blamed Syrian feudal elites and conservative Arab regimes, particularly Saudi Arabia, for the collapse of the union. For the remainder of the 1960s he turned increasingly to the left and to support from the Soviet Union. In Syria the breakup of the UAR allowed the Ba’ath Party gradually to become the dominant political force. Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Hafez al-Assad, a committed Ba’athist, seized power and established a regime that remained in power into the 21st century. Although both Nasser and the Ba’ath Party continued to advocate Arab union, no effective political or economic unions among Arab nations were formed after the collapse of the UAR. See also Iranian revolution; Iraq revolution (1958). Further reading: Herzog, Chaim. The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East. New York: Vintage, 1984; Jankowski, James. Nasser’s Egypt, Arab Nationalism, and the United Arab Republic. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002. Janice J. Terry United Nations The United Nations, already six decades old, has traversed a long, strife-formed cold war. Not a superstate above the states, it collectively approaches issues of war, peace, development, and justice, and has sufficient transforming potentials to create a new, better world order. Since the end of the cold war, it has acquired new dynamism, but at the same time it has to be restructured to cope with an emerging complex world of nation-states, various movements, and unforeseen challenges like terrorism. The United Nations, founded in the aftermath of World War II, was established at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 on the principle of collective security. It was the successor to the League of Nations, which had 438 United Nations been established after World War I but failed to organize world order on the principles of universality. The United Nations, therefore, took care to avoid the mistakes of its predecessor, and five major powers were given special power and responsibility through the mechanism of “veto” power in the most important organ of the United Nations—the Security Council. The goals of the United Nations were enshrined in the Charter: to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation, and to work as a harmonizer among nations. Security was the principal goal of the United Nations. Unlike in the league, however, security was not narrowly conceived in the United Nations but was broadened to include socioeconomic justice, human rights, and development. Like the league, the United Nations was based on the principles of collective security. The new principle on which the league and the United Nations were based does not consider security as the individual affair of states or regions but as a collective affair of all states, and aggression against one state is considered aggression against all others. All states are obliged to take collective action against the aggressor. from the league The UN Charter provided for six major organs, four of which evolved out of the League of Nations. The General Assembly was based on the democratic principle of “one country, one vote,” irrespective of size and power, and was essentially a deliberative organ. The countries of the Third World used the body for organizing themselves and took up issues of colonialism and racialism. The Charter provided for some supervisory functions of the General Assembly. The council and assembly had joint functions as well. The Security Council, the most United Nations 43 9 Indonesian peacekeepers board an aircraft in Jakarta, Indonesia, en route to Lebanon to support the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The peacekeeping force monitored the cease-fire between Hizbollah and Israel. important organ of the United Nations, reflected the reality of power. The United States, the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and China were the five permanent members with veto power and had special responsibility to maintain world peace and security. However, veto became a mechanism of obstruction, and the Soviet Union frequently used it; while the United States did not use it in earlier years, the frequency of veto increased after 1970. The Security Council was based on the assumption that the major powers would agree on issues of war and peace, but the onset of the cold war around 1945 made the United Nations a helpless spectator. The Charter provided for a mechanism of maintaining peace, whereby the council may call upon members states to apply sanctions against the aggressor and may form a Military Staff Committee consisting of the chief of staff of permanent members of the Security Council. The enforcement of peace was possible in the Korean War, and a united command was formed under the United States. It placed an embargo on the export of strategic materials to China and North Korea. Subsequently the provision could not be replicated for a long time. It was only after the closing stages of the cold war that the Security Council became effective again; consultations and coordination among the major powers in the council have been frequent, as in the Persian Gulf crisis and more recently over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For about five decades of the cold war, the United Nations never appeared to play the role envisaged at San Francisco in the realm of peace and security; it was bypassed in major flash points across the globe, such as the Panama Canal crisis, Hungary, the berlin blockade, the Cuban missile crisis, Arab-Israeli conflicts, the India-China border war, Vietnam and indochina, and the Sino-Soviet border war. The United Nations was a passive bystander as major powers professed to settle scores outside the United Nations. When the United Nations was hamstrung due to the use of veto, the General Assembly sought a way out through the Uniting for Peace Resolution to consider measures in a situation of breach of peace. After the end of the cold war, the United Nations became more active again, although in the process it acquired new functions, in line with but not envisaged in the Charter. During the turn of the 21st century this function, known as peacekeeping—traditionally denoting acting as a buffer between contending parties or monitoring ceasefire agreements—expanded to other areas. Now peacekeeping also means the provision of humanitarian relief, removal of mines, repatriation of refugees, and reconstruction of national infrastructure in devasted areas, such as Afghanistan. The costs of all of these functions have been enormous, especially in recent peacekeeping operations: South Africa, Rwanda, Iraq-Kuwait, Mozambique, Somalia, Haiti, and Liberia. Sometimes the United Nations has drawn flak; the UN troops have also been targeted, as in Somalia and Bosnia. cooperation Unlike during the cold war years, however, the United Nations finds cooperation among major powers to repulse aggression. In the First Gulf War, Moscow supported U.S. efforts to impose sanctions against Iraq, which had annexed Kuwait. The machinery of the United Nations was used. Other major powers contributed troops, particularly France and Britain. Japan and Germany too accepted new security roles. Besides war and peace, the United Nations has been instrumental in various humanitarian efforts. A large amount of credit must go to the United Nations for ending apartheid in South Africa, improving life expectancy in Africa, helping children suffering from malnutrition, and fighting diseases. It has not been as successful in the removal of global poverty, but it has launched efforts in that direction. Now the United Nations finds itself playing a new role against international terrorism. It has not been as successful, and the United States acted unilaterally in 1998 when al-Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in East Africa. Subsequently, following September 11, 2001, the United States took drastic steps, and the United Nations was more involved than before; terrorism became a key issue of international and United Nations concern. The United Nations has been moving into new, uncharted areas. In a world where millions of children die days after they are born, the issue of human rights has become a major arena of international attention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, has been enshrined in constitutions of states. Now the United Nations has also been a force in expanding the frontiers of democracy worldwide, believing that democracy fosters world peace. While the United Nations is engaged in redefining issues of war, peace, development, and freedom, reforming the world body has become a burning issue since the end of the cold war, and more particularly since 1998, when 185 states met to celebrate 50 years of the United Nations. There is also demand to restructure the Security Council and to add new permanent members—with or without veto power. Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, and some African countries are key candidates demanding permanent places on the Security Council. 44 0 United Nations The major powers with vetos—the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France—themselves differ about who should be permanent members in a reformed council. Reforms are, however, necessary to make the United Nations more in tune with the changes of the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. See also AIDS crisis. Further reading: Alleyne, Mark D. “The United Nations Celebrity Diplomacy.” SAIS Review 25, no. 1 (2005); Annan, Kofi. “‘In Larger Freedom’: Decision Time at the UN.” Foreign Affairs 84, no. 3 (2005); Hoffman, Stanley. “Thoughts on the UN at Fifty.” European Journal of International Law (6, no. 3, 1995); Johannes, Morsink. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting and Intent. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999; Russel, T. Bruce. “Ten Balances for Weighing UN Reform Proposals.” Political Science Quarterly 111, no. 2 (1996). R.G. Pradhan U Nu (1907–1995) Burmese leader U Nu was the prime minister of Burma (now the Union of Myanmar) from 1948 to 1958 and from 1960 to 1962 and was an important leader earlier in the struggle for independence from Britain. U Nu was born in a period during which the British colonization of Burma was coming under increasing pressure from nationalist Burmese and opposition in Britain. U Nu graduated from the University of Rangoon and worked for several years as a schoolteacher. In 1934 he returned to the university to study law and became involved with nationalist politics. He became leader of the student union and was subsequently expelled from the university, along with Aung San. The subsequent student strike was one of the earliest confrontations between the Burmese and the British, which intensified in the following years. U Nu joined the We- Burmans Association (Dobama Asi-ayone), which had been formed in the wake of the 1932 anti-Indian riots and was a center for nationalism. The association was dominated at first by the Rangoon University student union, but under U Nu and others it expanded its activities. It was influenced by a combination of Marxism, democratic socialism, and Irish nationalism. The leaders, including U Nu, took the forename Thakin, or master, to demonstrate that they were not subservient to the British. The forename “U” is an honorific. When World War II broke out in Asia, British authorities arrested U Nu and others, and they were imprisoned until Burma was invaded and occupied by the Japanese. The Japanese established a puppet government under Ba Maw, and U Nu served in his cabinet for a period. In the years between the end of the war and independence, U Nu assumed the leading position in the nationalist movement following Aung San’s assassination in 1947. Consequently, he headed the Anti- Fascist People’s Freedom League and became the first prime minister of independent Burma in 1948. Winning two subsequent elections, he remained in office for a decade, with only a brief hiatus in 1956–57. His time as prime minister was marked by numerous communist insurgencies and independence struggles by ethnic minority peoples, and a decline in the value of rice exports. His government proved unable to improve the lot of the people. He resigned in 1958, and the government was taken over by General Ne Win as a result of widespread social disorder. U Nu returned to power in a brief return to democracy from 1960 to 1962, but the subsequent military coup returned the country to the repressive regime that remained in power into the 21st century. U Nu was imprisoned by Ne Win and not released until 1969. He made several subsequent attempts to return to power, the first when he attempted to organize resistance to the military government in 1969. He was then forced into exile in India, although he returned to Rangoon to become a Buddhist monk in 1980. He had throughout his life been a devoted Buddhist and had introduced several laws to support the religion. In 1988 it briefly appeared that democracy would return to Burma, but U Nu’s attempt to seize power was crushed and he was put under house arrest. He was freed in 1992 and died in Rangoon three years later. See also Aung San Suu Kyi. Further reading: Fink, Cristina. Living Silence: Burma under Military Rule. London: Zed Books, 2001; Lintner, Bertil. Burma in Revolt: Opium and Insurgency since 1948. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books, 2000; Nu, U. U Nu: Saturday’s Son. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975. John Walsh U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty This was an agreement between the United States and Japan, which concluded in 1955, that allowed the United U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty 44 1 States to maintain its major security presence in Japan. Because of the communist threat in the cold war, the government of Yoshida Shigeru of Japan agreed to a U.S. proposal to create the Self-Defense Force (SDF) at a modest size of 180,000 troops in 1954. By allowing the Japanese government to train a modestly sized defense force, the constitution of 1947 was kept intact. The original treaty was replaced in 1960 by the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, which marked a significant change from the one-sided alliance to a more balanced relationship based on shared responsibility for defense. For the Japanese, the treaty provided a commitment from the United States to defend Japan against an armed attack, and it also required the United States to consult the Japanese government on the use of military bases on its soil. Consultation was required to ensure that any major changes to U.S. operations or force deployments would be approved by both governments. For the Eisenhower administration, the treaty ensured a greater commitment to a stable alliance to support U.S. interests in Northeast Asia. Gradually Japan took a greater share for its defense. In 1962 Japan began to pay some of the cost of U.S. military installations in Japan. The United States returned Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands to Japanese control. Beginning in the mid-1970s, U.S. forces were gradually reduced in Japan. In the late 1970s a new series of agreements were implemented to transfer the responsibility for protecting specific sea lanes to Japan. Along with its expanded commitments, Japan broke the former 1 percent spending cap for defense and began purchasing Americanmade aircraft. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought renewed focus to the U.S.-Japan defense alliance and lessened the need for a major U.S. military presence in northeast Asia. At the same time, Japan began to take on a greater international role. However, in 1991, the Japanese government was forced to decline requests to send troops to participate in the First Gulf War, bowing to parliamentary opposition. The next year, the Japanese government passed a new law authorizing Japan to participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations, with contingents of Japanese troops. The expansion of Japan’s international commitments were reaffirmed in 1996 with the Clinton-Hashimoto Security Declaration, in which the U.S. committed to maintain 100,000 troops in the Western Pacific region that included Japan. In 1999 the Japanese Diet passed the Law Concerning Measures to Ensure the Peace and Security of Japan in Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan. It authorized the use of force in “rear areas” surrounding Japan, partly in response to Communist North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. After 2001 Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and Maritime Defense Forces participated in U.S.-led military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington encouraged and supported Japanese efforts to contribute to the war on terror. Further reading: Campbell, Kurt M. “Energizing the U.S.- Japan Security Partnership.” Washington Quarterly 23, no. 4 (Autumn 2000); Green, Michael J. Arming Japan: Defense Production, Alliance Politics, and the Postwar Search for Autonomy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995; Takakazu, Kuriyama. “The Japan-US Alliance in Evolution.” In The Future of America’s Alliances in Northeast Asia, edited by Michael H. Armacost and Daniel I. Okimoto, 35–47. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Dan Fitzsimmons U.S. relations with China (Nixon) The visit of U.S. president Richard Nixon to China in February 1972 marked a turning point in U.S.-China relations. It gave maneuvering space to the United States in the strategic contest with the USSR. Their confrontation in the korean war began two decades of confrontation at a number of strategic points, especially in the Taiwan Straits and in Vietnam, where the United States was embroiled in a ground war supporting South Vietnam and while China provided backing to its then-ally North Vietnam. The turn in U.S.-China ties from confrontation to rapproachment was a result of a host of factors, but mainly because both nations were concerned about the dangers posed by the Soviet Union. The U.S. Senate began a review of U.S.-China policy. China too was moving from Maoist ideological puritanism toward greater pragmatism, spurred on by the Sino-Soviet border dispute. The Soviet Union’s intervention in Czechoslovakia in August 1968 led to its pronouncement of the Brezhnev Doctrine that as the leading country of the Marxist bloc, the USSR had the right to determine the correct interpretation of Marxism and to intervene in socialist countries that deviated from the correct line. Since China under Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) had developed its own version of Marxism, it feared that it could become a Soviet target for its deviations. Hence came China’s quest to end its diplomatic isolation with a rapprochement with the United States. 442 U.S. relations with China (Nixon) The Nixon administration saw an opening with China as a graceful way out of the Vietnam War. It therefore needed China’s leverage to facilitate a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. The opening came when U.S. and Chinese table tennis teams met in an international table tennis tournament, with the result that the U.S. team was invited to China. President Nixon took steps to expedite visas for visitors from China to the United States, relaxed currency controls, and lifted restrictions on U.S. oil companies to provide fuel to ships and aircraft traveling to and from China. Since Washington and Beijing had no diplomatic ties, Pakistan acted as intermediary. In July 1971 National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger secretly visited China via Pakistan “to seek normalization of relations” and an exchange of views of common interest. The announcement heralded an atmosphere of warmth and cordiality in U.S.-China relations, which had been frozen for two decades. Meanwhile the United States had also departed from its hard-line stand that blocked the People’s Republic of China from seating its legitimate representation in the United Nations. In August 1971 the United States dropped its opposition, paving the way for the seating of China in the United Nations. In his report to the U.S. Congress on February 9, 1971, Nixon stressed the importance of his forthcoming visit to China as the starting point for changing “the post-war landscape.” While a quick resolution of outstanding issues were not possible, it signaled the end of “a sterile and barren interlude” in ties. Nixon arrived in Beijing on February 21, 1972, accompanied by Secretary of State William P. Rogers and Henry Kissinger. The visit generated global interest as a watershed in redefining the balance of power of the world. Transcending previous differences, Nixon emphasized “common interests” in a new era. The two countries signed the Shanghai Communiqué, wherein China stated its stand on Cambodia, Korea, and Vietnam. The United States envisaged “the ultimate withdrawal” of all forces from Indochina; significantly, both countries declared opposition to hegemony in the Asia-Pacific area, implying that both had an interest in limiting Soviet power in the region. The Taiwan issue evaded a solution, but U.S.-China ties had moved from deep hostility to détente, facilitating major changes in the global balance of power. Further reading: Barnds, William J. China and America: The Search for a New Relationship. New York: New York University Press, 1977; Clubb, O. Edmand. China and Russia: The Great Game. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971; Fairbank, John King. China Perceived: Images and Policies in Chinese-American Relations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974; ———. The United States and China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939; Gittings, John. The World and China, 1922–1972. London: Eyre Methuen, 1974. R.G. Pradhan U.S.-Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty The U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK, South Korea) Mutual Defense Treaty was signed October 1, 1953, and became effective in 1954. It committed the United States to the defense of the ROK against future attacks by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea). In early 1953, as the Korean War armistice talks opened, U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower sought a way to convince ROK president Syngman Rhee to accept a truce with DPRK. Rhee, who had insisted that no truce short of military reunification of the two Koreas would suffice, balked at the U.S. demand that he sign an armistice with DPRK. Rhee flatly rejected any agreement that would allow the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (Chinese Communists) to remain in Korea following a ceasefire because he maintained that such an agreement would be tantamount to ROK’s signing its own death warrant. Despite Eisenhower’s assurances that the United States would pursue all peaceful means of reunification, and offers to enter a mutual security pact with the ROK, Rhee sought a mutual defense treaty with the United States as a precondition for any armistice. Rhee’s unilateral release of 25,000 DPRK prisoners of war on June 25, 1953, complicated negotiations and increased pressure on the United States to bring the ROK leader to agree to an armistice. To that end, Eisenhower sent Assistant Secretary of State Walter Robinson to offer Rhee a mutual security pact and promised economic incentives in return for Rhee’s agreement. The Robinson mission was successful, and when Rhee did not stand in the way of the armistice, which was signed on July 27, 1953, the two countries set about crafting the bilateral treaty. On August 8, 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles initiated negotiations that culminated in a treaty of six articles, based on the model of existing treaties between the United States and the Philippines, and the United States and Australia and New Zealand. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization model was U.S.-Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty 443 rejected because it would have given the president the authority to consider an external attack on ROK as an attack on American territory. Seeking to limit its commitment and to contain its ally, the United States defined its responsibilities as extending only to territory under ROK control at the time the treaty was signed or subsequently recognized as lawfully incorporated into the ROK. During the ratification debates in the U.S. Senate a note of understanding was added to the treaty clarifying the U.S. position that the mutual defense agreement extended only to attacks from external forces. It received ratification on January 26, 1954, and the president accepted the Senate’s recommendations on February 5, 1954, subject to the agreement on the limitation of commitment. ROK agreed to the change, and the treaty came into effect when ratification documents were exchanged in Washington, D.C., on November 17, 1954. The treaty remains in effect, and U.S. forces remain stationed in the ROK. Further reading: Collins, J. Lawton. War in Peacetime: The History and Lessons of Korea. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969; Stueck, William, ed. The Korean War in World History. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2004; U.S. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Vol. XV: Korea. 2 parts. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1984. Anthony Santoro U.S.-Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty The United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan) signed a mutual defense treaty in 1954 in which the United States would provide protection for the ROC in case of invasion by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The treaty was approved by U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower and Taiwan’s president Chiang Kai-shek and was fully ratified by their respective legislatures. The treaty was a product of U.S. cold war policy. The United States had washed its hands of China’s civil war in 1948, but had become concerned about communist expansion when Communist North Korea attacked pro- Western South Korea in 1950. The United States then sent the Seventh Fleet to patrol the waters in Taiwan Strait. In September 1954 the PRC attacked the ROC. The terms of the treaty committed the U.S. government to deploy land, sea, and air forces in and around Taiwan as required for its defense. The treaty also stipulated that the ROC and the United States would aid each other to increase their capacity to resist an armed attack or communist subversive activities directed against either country’s territorial integrity. Furthermore, both sides agreed to maintain peace and security in the region and refrain from the use of force in any manner inconsistent with their obligations to the United Nations. Following the 1954 crisis with the PRC, the United States became concerned that the nationalist government of Taiwan might deploy force against the mainland. This could possibly involve American troops despite the treaty’s defensive nature. United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles met with ROC president Chiang Kaishek to urge against attacking the PRC. An incident occurred in 1958 when the PRC shot down two Nationalist F-84s on patrol. The PRC also renewed attacks on the offshore islands in midsummer 1958, testing the commitment of the United States to the treaty. In response, the United States deployed an aircraft carrier battle group to the region that included combat aircraft and transports. Nationalist forces were escorted safely by their ships to supply their offshore islands. Both the United States and the Soviet Union urged a peaceful solution. Throughout the 1950s–60s the United States remained sympathetic to the cause of the ROC but also acted to restrain the ROC from acts that might provoke the PRC. Beginning in 1971 the United States began to negotiate with the PRC. In 1972 President Richard Nixon visited China. The visit culminated in the Shanghai Communiqué in which China declared that Taiwan was a part of China and that differences should be resolved peacefully. In 1978 President Jimmy Carter established formal diplomatic relations with the PRC, effective in 1979, thereby severing relations with the ROC and ending the U.S.-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty. A Taiwan Relations Act enacted by the U.S. Senate in 1979 authorized nonofficial relations with the ROC that also provided for the U.S. sale of weapons to the ROC. See also U.S. relations with China (Nixon). Further reading: Gordon, Leonard H. D. “United States Opposition to Use of Force in the Taiwan Strait, 1954–1962.” Journal of American History 72, no. 3 (December 1985); Graff, David A., and Robin Higham. A Military History of China. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press, 2002; Snyder, Edwin K. The Taiwan Relations Act and the Defense of the Republic of China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980; Tucker, Nancy Bernkopf. Dangerous Strait: The U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Dan Fitzsimmons

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki