Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract: From 1985 to 1991, a small project of North American and European Mennonites based in Brussels, Belgium, focused on watching the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This article tells the story of that project. It concludes by surveying the major developments in and the United Nations after 1991. The essay briefly examines Mennonite responses to the increasing military activity of both and the United Nations after the end of the Cold War, and the challenges that this activity posed for Mennonites. Between 1985 and 1991 a group of North American and European Mennonites set their sights on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the military alliance of Western European and North American countries formed in the aftermath of World War II and located in the Belgian capital of Brussels. (1) The project, which became known as NATO Watch, drew its inspiration from Mennonite Central Committee offices in Ottawa and Washington, D.C., as well as from Quaker monitoring and advocacy centers in a number of international capitals. (2) The seeds of the initiative had been sown in January 1982 during a seminar in sponsored by the European office of Mennonite Central Committee that attracted thirty Mennonites from Western Europe, the United States, and Canada. (3) The colloquium took place at the height of the Cold War. In December of 1979 NATO's dual-track decision to deploy 572 U.S. Cruise and Pershing II missiles capable of striking the Soviet Union in five West European countries had spawned large-scale protest marches and heated political debate in many North Atlantic countries. Within the broader peace movement, European and North American Mennonites had joined with a variety of Christian peace groups to oppose the U.S. missile deployment, especially after the Reagan administration, which took office in January 1981, announced its opposition to detente and arms contro1. (4) The three-day seminar, jointly organized by Walter Sawatsky, secretary of M.C.C. Europe, and Stephen Shank, a Mennonite Board of Missions worker at the recently-opened Mennonite Center, included visits to institutions such as the European Community and NATO, and to various church offices focusing on European issues. (5) During these visits representatives of both the Quaker Council on European Affairs and the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society in the European Community urged Mennonites to do something here in Brussels as a witness to their longstanding commitment to peace. Both the Quaker Council and Ecumenical Commission pointed to as an institution outside of their respective mandates but meriting serious church interest and attention. Although the M.C.C. Executive Committee rejected an ensuing proposal to support a Mennonite volunteer to work on issues from the offices of the Quaker Council, M.C.C. Europe made available a modest subsidy to the European Mennonite Peace Committee to support a focus on activities. In May of 1984 several European Mennonite Peace Committee members formed a NATO Interest and tested the idea of a NATO Listening Post later that summer in the Peace Resource Center at Mennonite World Conference Assembly XI, which met in Strasbourg, France. Immediately after the Assembly, a twenty-member Western European Peace Study Tour, organized by the International Mennonite Peace Committee, included a visit to the military headquarters in southern Belgium, providing a further impetus to do something. (6) The following spring, Jan Piet van den Berg of the Dutch Mennonite Peace Group and J. Robert Charles, serving with Mennonite Board of Missions at the Mennonite Center, circulated a twelve-page Watch newsletter, identified as an occasional publication of the European Mennonite Peace Committee. (7) The original mailing list of 150 persons included Mennonite peace group members, participants in the Church and Peace network, recent Quaker Council seminar visitors to and officials who had briefed the group, and various peace activists. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».