Interest and Ideology in the Study of Agrarian Politics
Guatemala or Cuba in the 1950s; to Vietnam or the Dominican Republic in the 1960s; or to Iran or Nicaragua in the 1970s. Broken into its component parts, the quotation elucidates several interesting themes. The U S. will trouble a landed class, if trouble means the midwifery necessary to bring forth a capitalist baby from a feudal womb, especially when the alternative is a Communist caesarian. A peasant is conservative not because of some inherent predisposition, but because of the interests that motivate him: small-holding farmer interests beget conservatism. Last, a land system controlled almost exclusively by fourteen families (as in El Salvador) begets revolution of the wrong kind. The U. S. is in the business of fomenting revolution of the right kind: breeding capitalists like little bunnies. The case happens to have been El Salvador, and this case also happens to have certain interesting characteristics. In addition to those mentioned above, it possesses a very poor and largely illiterate peasantry that until recently seemed caught up in a web of patronclient ties that hamstrung peasants and defeated radical organizers.
Peasant Revolution in Ethiopia: The Tigray People's Liberation Front, 1975-1991
Acknowledgements 1. Peasants and revolutions: theoretical directions 2. Historical and social background 3. Tigray on the eve of insurrection 4. Struggle for opposition ascendancy: 1975-8 5. Challenges and advances: 1978-85 6. Triumph: 1985-91 7. TPLF and the peasants 8. Conclusion Notes Bibliography Index.
The Impact of the Law of the Sea Convention on the Regime for Islands: Problems for the Coastal State in Asserting Claims to “New-Born” Islands in Maritime Zones
ter-productive. The work of the Preparatory Commission will certainly suffer in consequence and the apparently perceived belief that in time, and before a longdelayed coming into force of the Convention, substantial re-negotiation of the Part XI provisions will be possible, may well be illusory. At the time of writing, 138 countries have signed the Convention and 14 have ratified.* What has been called "the convoluted compromise" over prospective Community participation will certainly be widely interpreted as an attempt by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom to secure eventually a form of limited accession with major reservations.* Their stance will be subjected to criticism within the Community as well as in the General Assembly and the Preparatory Commission. This is a subject to which the writer hopes to return in a future article. For the moment, however, it is as well to note that the stance of these two countries is not to be identified with the US position although its adoption now makes even more remote the emergence of a deep sea-bed mining regime established by " . . . an international treaty of a universal character, generally agreed upon . . . " as required by the 1970 General Assembly Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-Bed . . . Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction.*