In the late 1950s, after a long break, the Soviet Union restarted sending official privileged artists to the United States on creative missions. On their return these artists were showing sketches and paintings based on what they had seen during their American trips at official exhibitions as well as their materials and interviews were published in major magazines and newspapers like «Yunost», «Ogonyok», «Kul'tura i zhizn'» etc. All these trips were a part of a grand exchange program approved between the USA and the USSR in 1958. Therefore, not only artists of the Bolshoi Theater or various dance groups, not only delegations of writers, journalists or musicians, but also Soviet nomenclature painters such as Vitaly Goryaev, Ivan Semenov, Yakov Romas, and Orest Vereisky, Tair Salakhov, Vadim Ryndin, Alexey Shmarinov and others were able to see America in the late 1950s - 1960s.
This article is concerned with the cultural relationship between the USA and the USSR in the late 1950s and in the beginning of the 1960s, the history of business trips of official Soviet artists and their impressions of the USA.
In recent years, the rise of serious military, political, economic and political contradictions between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China became a reality. In American political circles they started talking about a new "Cold" (and even possibly "Hot") War between the two countries. The growth of Chinese military power and economic potential cause an alarm in American ruling circles. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army challenged the US absolute military preponderance in the Western part of the Pacific Ocean. The Chinese military can use against the Americans the tactics of Anti-Access/Area Denial, thus changing radically the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific Region. Mainland China now is the strongest economy in the world, undermining thus the US global economic positions. The American political and academic elite is also concerned about the possibility of forming a Russian-Chinese anti-American Alliance. In the US, however, there is no unity as to who America's main enemy in the new cold war is - Russia or China. In any foreseeable future, America will have to confront such strong opponents as Russia and China, under the conditions of disorder and discontent in the United States.
Regional conflicts and civil wars born out of religious and ethnic contradictions are characteristic for the second crisis of world order of 2010s. International system was divided ideologically and this is ineffective in conflict resolution, and great powers oppose each other diametrically regarding the reasons of conflict as well as methods and goals of their resolution. For Russia and some non-Western nations the goal of conflict resolution would be the preservation and reinforcement of the local state so that it is able to maintain law and order on its territory and stabilize the situation in the region. For U.S. and Western countries the goal in conflict resolution will be the protection of individual rights and freedoms together with the establishment of liberal democratic regime on the place of the former authoritarian one, leading very often to the vacuum of power and chaos. The policy of the west is based on liberal ideology mixed with interventionist ideas. Russia views the situation through the prism of statehood and nationalism
For the first time since World War II, the U.S. seem to lose leadership at the multilateral trade talks shifting accents to bilateral and regional trade cooperation. The main reason for the shift is a deadlock at the WTO Doha-round negotiations where the U.S. face opposition of the steadily growing economies of India, China and Brazil.
Торговые переговоры, ГАТТ, ВТО, США, многосторонняя торговая система, ЕС, Япония, ИНДИЯ, КИТАЙ, Бразилия, Дж. Буш-мл., Б. Обама, М. Баррозу, Р. Зеллик, П. Лами, Р. Кирк, Л. да Силва, Карел де Гюхт, АТЭС, НАФТА, АСЕАН, трансатлантическое партнерство, "двадцатка", trade talks, GATT, WTO, U.S., Multilateral Trading System, Eu, Japan, India, China, Brazil, G.-W. Bush, B. Obama, M. Barrozo, R. Zoellick, P. Lamy, R. Kirk, L. da Silva, Karel de Gucht, APEC, NAFTA, ASEAN, Transatlantic Partnership, G 20
At the end of the XIX – beginning of the XX century, a new social layer of the financial and industrial oligarchy was formed in the United States, which needed ideological support. Darwin's theory, which appeared in the middle of the 19th century, also gave an impetus to the formation of the theory of social Darwinism, which was founded by the British sociologists G. Spencer and W. Sumner. The emergence of a class of corporate business elite, owners of super-profits, was explained by natural selection, the product of which was a new layer of American society. Under the pressure of mass protest movements, it was replaced by the theory of "social responsibility of business", which was heralded by the nouveau riches themselves – first E. Carnegie, and then G. Ford. It spread the thesis of charity as a means of public "service" of business to society and encouraged it in every possible way. Thus, changing under the influence of social factors, the corporate business elite has largely managed to form the ideological base of its top position in American society.
The basis offinancial system in Japan was created in process of extreme transformation of economic formation in the Meiji era (1868-1912). As in other aspects of economic reform in Japan, the government decided to take advantage of foreign experience and adapt successful foreign practices in its own country, taking into account the specific Japanese conditions of economic development. At first, attention was paid to the U.S. financial system. It was based on a network of private banks, which allowed accumulating private capital of the population, which would have been much more difficult with the system of state banks. However the American model did not take root in Japan, and it was decided to switch to the British financial system. The problems were related to the peculiarities of the implementation of the American model on the Japanese soil, which caused the overflow of unsecured liquidity. Thus, inflation in Japan in the second half of the 1870s, resulting in rejection of the American model of the banking system, was caused by the Japanese government mistakes in financial management and not by devolved model of the U.S. banking system.