The Structure of Concern Project compares many theoretical models from many disciplines to the Adizes PAEI model, arguing that they must all be reflecting the same underlying phenomenon. One concern structure model is described below.

The Balanced Scorecard has evolved from a tool for strategic planning into a major business and organizational paradigm for strategic management, and I do not plan to summarize it in its entirety here. It is based on several insights, one being that people in organizations fulfill those goals they are being measured against. If performance on a task type is not being measured, it will not be a priority for people at work. Furthermore, financial accounting is an inadequate measure of organizational behavior. It measures past productivity, whereas Kaplan and Norton (1996[1]) insist that four perspectives on performance really need to be measured in organizations. In PAEI order, these are:

P – Financial: To succeed financially how should we appear to our shareholders?
A – Internal Business Processes: To satisfy our shareholders and customers, what business processes must we excel at?
E – Learning and Growth: To achieve our vision, how will we sustain our ability to change and improve?
I – Customers: To achieve our vision, how should we appear to our customers?

Karasek’s demand-control model of occupational stress has had a large influence on the job design and occupational health literature, in part because it is quite spare, practical and testable. (Jones & Bright, 2001[1]). In Karasek’s model, workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control (discretion, authority or decision latitude etc.) the person has over their own responsibilities. This creates four kinds of jobs: passive, active, low strain and high strain.

Job demands represent the psychological stressors in the work environment. These include factors such as: interruption rate, time pressures, conflicting demands, reaction time required, pace of work, proportion of work performed under pressure, amount of work, degree of concentration required, and the slowing down of work caused by the need to wait for others.


Decision latitude refers to employees’ control over their tasks and how those tasks are executed. It consists of both skill discretion and decision authority. Skill discretion describes the degree to which the job involves a variety of tasks, low levels of repetitiveness, occasions for creativity and opportunities to learn new things and develop special abilities. Decision authority describes both the employee’s ability to make decisions about their own job, and their ability to influence their own work team and more general company policies.


Crossing the dimensions of strain and latitude give us four stress categories for jobs, as follows:


P – High Strain Jobs (Low Latitude, High Strain): Producers are more likely to augment their strain levels by taking more on without seeking additional latitude, partly because of their appreciation of challenge and their desire to enjoy individual mastery experiences, and partly because they take an individual approach to responsibility ascription, which may cause them to overlook opportunities to ask for more latitude. Producers enjoy levels of strain that people with other dominant styles would find excessive. Of all the styles, they are most likely to thrive in high strain jobs.


A – Passive Jobs (Low Latitude, Low Strain): As long as the passivity of a job stems from successfully forestalling disruptions, then that passivity is likely to be highly satisfying to an Administrator. Passivity that stems from the job being either irrelevant or unimportant will not be satisfying. The Administrative style seeks to manage disruptions by putting processes into place that cope with all contingencies and buffer the vital variables of the organization, preventing them from disruption. When latitude is reduced by following a procedure, and when that procedure causes things to proceed smoothly with low levels of strain, an Administrator will take that as evidence of success. The goal state of Administration will be reached, and maintaining that peace will be a pleasure.


E – Active Jobs (High Latitude, High Strain): Active jobs are not seen as stressful in Karasek’s typology, because employees have many protective measures available to them to reduce the strain. Of all the PAEI styles, it is E that most naturally thrives in active situations. E is characterized by great ambition and almost no fear surrounding disruptions of the status quo. Strain is thus a continual consequence of E type work. E also needs great flexibility and latitude both to stir up problems and seek out solutions. The active mode most nearly matches the mode in which E naturally works.


I – Low Strain Jobs (High Latitude, Low Strain): The combination of high levels of latitude with low levels of strain indicates that social processes are very significant in the low strain job. Employees will have a lot of authority relative to their strain levels, and thus will presumably participate more in the definition and management of tasks than in other, more stressful working environments.

Karasek’s model has been adapted and extended in various ways, but these will not be reviewed here.

In his consulting practice and his book The Four Kinds of Sales People: How and Why They Excel - And How You Can Too, Chuck Mache (2007) defines a concern structure pattern for selling styles, as follows:

P – Performer

A – Professional

E – Searcher

I – Caretaker

Danny Miller (1992[1]) describes the dynamics of corporate growth and decline in his book The Icarus Paradox, which shows how the same behavior (or “trajectory”) that makes some firms successful also leads to their decline. He defines a four part concern structure typology of these behavior patterns, given below in PAEI order.

P – The Venturing Trajectory: This trajectory converts “growth-driven, entrepreneurial BUILDERS companies managed by imaginative leaders and creative planning and financial staffs into impulsive, greedy IMPERIALISTS who severely overtax their resources by expanding helter-skelter into businesses they know nothing about.”


A – The Focusing Trajectory: This trajectory “takes punctilious, quality-driven CRAFTSMEN organizations with their masterful engineers and airtight operations, and turns them into rigidly controlled, detail-obsessed TINKERERS firms whose insular, technocratic monocultures alienate customers with perfect, but irrelevant, offerings.”


E – The Inventing Trajectory: This trajectory “takes PIONEERS with unexcelled R&D departments, flexible think tank operations, and state-of-the-art products, and transforms them into utopian ESCAPISTS run by a cult of chaos-loving scientists who squander resources in the pursuit of hopelessly grand and futuristic inventions.”


I – The Decoupling Trajectory: This trajectory “transforms SALESMEN organizations with unparalleled marketing skills, prominent brand names, and broad markets into aimless, bureaucratic DRIFTERS whose sales fetish obscures design issues, and who produce a stale and disjointed line of "me too" offerings.”

Version of the ancient star/Sun symbol of Shamash[1]

Anna Dietrich established that there was four types of creativity. In my psychology class at UCSD I learned these types. The types of creativity are based on a dichotomy. The dichotomy is deliberate/spontaneous, and emotional/cognitive. They are
Square 1: Deliberate and cognitive: The cognitive square corresponds to abstractness.The deliberate square corresponds to cooperative.This emerges from sustained work in a discipline. For example, Thomas Edison, who invented the electric light bulb, was a deliberate and cognitive creator. He ran experiment after experiment before he would come up with an invention.
According to Dietrich, Deliberate and cognitive creativity comes from the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) in your brain. The PFC makes it so you can pay focused attention and make connections among information that you have gathered in other parts of your brain. In order for deliberate, cognitive creativity to occur, you need to already have a sufficient amount of knowledge about one or more particular topics. Idealists tend to have a large amount of knowledge. Idealists are the first square personality.
Square 2: Personal breakthrough “a-ha” moments – a-ha moments are emotional and deliberate. This creativity is associated with the Guardian. The guardian is concrete, and thus emotional. He is not cognitive and abstract. the guardian is also cooperative and thus deliberate, and not utilitarian and spontaneous. Personal breakthrough creativity happens after a personal crisis personal crisis (relationship break-up, got fired, gone through a bankruptcy), when a flash of insight about yourself and what chain of bad decisions in your life occurs. This type of creativity also involves the PFC, which is the deliberate part. But according to Dietrich this type of emotional creativity is also connected to the cingulate cortex, which is tied to processing complex feelings that are related to how you interact with others, and your place in the world. And the cingulated cortex is connected to the PFC. This kind of creativity happened for me when I realized why it was that I was kicked out onto the streets and became homeless when I originally wrote this book.
Square 3: Epiphanies” —Epiphanies are emotional, and spontaneous. Emotional is tied to being concrete. Spontaneous is connected with being utilitarian. Epiphanies are therefore related to artisans. The amygdala is associated with spontaneous and emotional creativity, according to Dietrich, as it is where basic emotions are processed. When the conscious brain and the PFC are resting, spontaneous ideas and creations can occur.This kind of creativity is linked to artists and musicians. The artisan is connected with art. These kind of spontaneous and emotional creative moments are quite powerful, such as an epiphany, or a religious experience. Knowledge is not required for this type of creativity, but there is often skill (writing, artistic, musical) necessary to make something from the spontaneous and emotional creative idea. Artisans tend not to have too much information and abstract consciousness, but they do tend to have a lot of skills.

Square 4:Isaac Newton “Eureka” moments — Eureka moments are cognitive and spontaneous creativity. This type of creativity occurs when you are searching for an answer and you go to lunch, or taking a shower and you get a flash of insight about how to staff the project. This is an example of spontaneous and cognitive creativity. According to Dietrich deliberate and cognitive creativity comes from the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) in your brain, which pays focused attention and makes connections among information that you have stored in other parts of your brain. You need to already have a knowledge about one or more particular topics, and put together existing information in new and novel ways. This was the type of creativity that occurred when I discovered the quadrant model of reality, or as Dietrich mentions, when Newton discovered his insight on gravity. This type of creativity is associated with rationals, who are abstract, and thus cognitive, gathering a lot of information, and utilitarian, and thus spontaneous.

The four world religions. As I described technically according to the term world religion there is four Judaism is the questionable fifth but most historians don't count it a world religion

Adi Shankara, in his review of the Mundaka Upanishad, states Om as a symbolism for Atman (soul, self).[74]

Mandukya Upanishad Edit
The Mandukya Upanishad opens by declaring, "Om!, this syllable is this whole world".[75] Thereafter it presents various explanations and theories on what it means and signifies.[76] This discussion is built on a structure of "four fourths" or "fourfold", derived from A + U + M + "silence" (or without an element).[75][76]

Aum as all states of time
In verse 1, the Upanishad states that time is threefold: the past, the present and the future, that these three are "Aum". The four fourth of time is that which transcends time, that too is "Aum" expressed.[76]
Aum as all states of Atman
In verse 2, states the Upanishad, everything is Brahman, but Brahman is Atman (the Soul, Self), and that the Atman is fourfold.[75] Johnston summarizes these four states of Self, respectively, as seeking the physical, seeking inner thought, seeking the causes and spiritual consciousness, and the fourth state is realizing oneness with the Self, the Eternal.[77]
Aum as all states of consciousness
In verses 3 to 6, the Mandukya Upanishad enumerates four states of consciousness: wakeful, dream, deep sleep and the state of ekatma (being one with Self, the oneness of Self).[76] These four are A + U + M + "without an element" respectively.[76]
Aum as all of knowledge
In verses 9 to 12, the Mandukya Upanishad enumerates fourfold etymological roots of the syllable "Aum". It states that the first element of "Aum" is A, which is from Apti (obtaining, reaching) or from Adimatva (being first).[75] The second element is U, which is from Utkarsa (exaltation) or from Ubhayatva (intermediateness).[76] The third element is M, from Miti (erecting, constructing) or from Mi Minati, or apīti (annihilation).[75] The fourth is without an element, without development, beyond the expanse of universe. In this way, states the Upanishad, the syllable Om is indeed the Atman (the self).[75][76]
Shvetashvatara Upanishad Edit

Adi Shankara, in his review of the Mundaka Upanishad, states Om as a symbolism for Atman (soul, self).[74]

Mandukya Upanishad Edit
The Mandukya Upanishad opens by declaring, "Om!, this syllable is this whole world".[75] Thereafter it presents various explanations and theories on what it means and signifies.[76] This discussion is built on a structure of "four fourths" or "fourfold", derived from A + U + M + "silence" (or without an element).[75][76]

Aum as all states of time
In verse 1, the Upanishad states that time is threefold: the past, the present and the future, that these three are "Aum". The four fourth of time is that which transcends time, that too is "Aum" expressed.[76]
Aum as all states of Atman
In verse 2, states the Upanishad, everything is Brahman, but Brahman is Atman (the Soul, Self), and that the Atman is fourfold.[75] Johnston summarizes these four states of Self, respectively, as seeking the physical, seeking inner thought, seeking the causes and spiritual consciousness, and the fourth state is realizing oneness with the Self, the Eternal.[77]
Aum as all states of consciousness
In verses 3 to 6, the Mandukya Upanishad enumerates four states of consciousness: wakeful, dream, deep sleep and the state of ekatma (being one with Self, the oneness of Self).[76] These four are A + U + M + "without an element" respectively.[76]
Aum as all of knowledge
In verses 9 to 12, the Mandukya Upanishad enumerates fourfold etymological roots of the syllable "Aum". It states that the first element of "Aum" is A, which is from Apti (obtaining, reaching) or from Adimatva (being first).[75] The second element is U, which is from Utkarsa (exaltation) or from Ubhayatva (intermediateness).[76] The third element is M, from Miti (erecting, constructing) or from Mi Minati, or apīti (annihilation).[75] The fourth is without an element, without development, beyond the expanse of universe. In this way, states the Upanishad, the syllable Om is indeed the Atman (the self).[75][76]
Shvetashvatara Upanishad Edit



These Corinthians had held a popularity contest and there had been four nominees. They had separated themselves four groups and they each claimed to be following after a man.


1. The Paul Group.


This first group wanted to be loyal to Paul. After all, he was the one who had begun the church at Corinth and he deserved their undivided loyalty.


2. The Apollos Group.


Apollos was a young preacher who had visited Corinth and who had preached there for a time. Acts 18:11 says that he was "an eloquent man" (anhr logios). Apparently he was known for his impressive speaking ability. The people who followed him may have been impressed by the big words that he used.


3. The Peter Group.


This group may have been the working class. They could identify with the tough, gruff fisherman from Galilee who had been given the keys to the kingdom.


4. The Jesus Group.


It could be that this group had a false piety that said, "You other people can listen to all of those other Bible teachers, but we won’t listen to anyone but Jesus." They had a party in which they burned all of their commentaries and now they walked around with their nose in the air and dismissed all that did not belong to their party.


The Herodian Tetrarchy was formed following the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, when his kingdom was divided between his sons Herod Archelaus as ethnarch, Herod Antipas and Philip as tetrarchs in inheritance, while Herod's sister Salome I shortly ruled a toparchy of Jamnia. Judea, the major section of the tetrarchy, was transformed by Rome in 6 CE, abolishing the rule of Herod Archelaus, thus forming the Province of Judea by joining together Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea.[1] With the death of Salome I in 10 CE, her domain was also incorporated into the new Judaea province. However, other parts of the Herodian Tetrarchy continued to function under Herodians. Thus, Philip the Tetrarch ruled Batanea, with Trachonitis, as well as Auranitis until 34 CE (his domain later being incorporated into the Province of Syria), while Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea until 39 CE.


The word Tetrarch suggests four rulers ("ruler of a quarter"); however Josephus, in the context of describing Herod’s legacy, only mentions three. He refers to Archelaus, who had "one half of that which had been subject to Herod", and for Philip and Antipas "the other half, divided into two parts".[5] On the other hand, Luke the Evangelist refers to Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, in his list of rulers at the time of John the Baptist, alongside Pontius Pilate (one of a series of Roman governors who replaced Archelaus), Herod (Antipas), and Philip.[6] Josephus' reference to one half the kingdom may signify that Archelaus was ruler of two quarters. This would suggest that division into quarters was already established, and that Lysanias' quarter was part of a different tetrarchy in Syria; this is credible, as Herod III, brother of Herod Agrippa I, was king of Chalcis, which was to the north, outside Herod's kingdom. Or it may be that Josephus, in describing the inheritances of Herod's sons, omitted to mention Lysanias, or his predecessor, as they were not Herodians. The reference to "one half of the kingdom" could then be understood as a geographical, rather than a political observation; Archelaus' share of the kingdom covered about half the territory, and more than half the revenue, owned by Herod.[citation needed] It is the view of W. Smith, referring to Abilene, that Abilene, or part of it, was subject to Herod before his death, and held by Lysanias as a tetrarchate from him. The territory was returned later to the Herodians, the first part by Caligula to Herod Agrippa I, the remainder by Claudius to Herod Agrippa II.[7]

The Year of the Four Emperors was a year in the history of the Roman Empire, AD 69, in which four emperors ruled in succession: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.

Big Four, a nickname for WCW's major pay-per-view events, SuperBrawl, The Great American Bash, Halloween Havoc, and Starrcade

Big Four, the four major marathon races among the five World Marathon Majors
Big Four, the four leading major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada: MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL
Big Four, the four leading professional association football leagues in Europe, Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A


One significant feature of the Premier League in the mid-2000s was the dominance of the so-called "Big Four" clubs: Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United.[25][26] During this decade, they dominated the top four spots, which came with UEFA Champions League qualification, taking all top-four places in 5 out of 6 seasons from 2003–04 to 2008–09 inclusive. Arsenal went as far as winning the league without losing a single game in 2003–04, the only time it has ever happened in the Premier League.[27] In May 2008 Kevin Keegan stated that "Big Four" dominance threatened the division, "This league is in danger of becoming one of the most boring but great leagues in the world."[28] Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore said in defence: "There are a lot of different tussles that go on in the Premier League depending on whether you're at the top, in the middle or at the bottom that make it interesting."[29]


The years following 2009 marked a shift in the structure of the "Big Four" with Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City both breaking into the top four.[30] In the 2009–10 season, Tottenham finished fourth and became the first team to break the top four since Everton in 2005.[31] Criticism of the gap between an elite group of "super clubs" and the majority of the Premier League has continued, nevertheless, due to their increasing ability to spend more than the other Premier League clubs.[32] Manchester City won the title in the 2011–12 season, becoming the first club outside the "Big Four" to win since 1994–95. That season also saw two of the Big Four (Chelsea and Liverpool) finish outside the top four places for the first time since 1994–95.[30] In the following five seasons, Manchester United and Liverpool both found themselves outside of the top four three times while Chelsea finished 10th in the 2015–16 season. Arsenal finished 5th in the 2016–17 season, ending their record of 20 consecutive top-four finishes.[33]




Chris Cornell – lead vocals, rhythm guitar

Kim Thayil – lead guitar

Ben Shepherd – bass

Matt Cameron – drums

"Jesus Christ Pose" is the debut single by the American rock band Soundgarden, released in 1991 as the first single from the band's third studio album, Badmotorfinger (1991). The song was included on Soundgarden's 1997 greatest hits album, A-Sides.



Chris Cornell – lead vocals, rhythm guitar, mandolin (track 5), keyboards (track 14)

Kim Thayil – lead guitar

Ben Shepherd – bass

Matt Cameron – drums

The Big Four or The Four Nations refer to the four top Allied powers of the World War I [1] and their leaders who met at the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919. The Big Four is also known as the Council of Four. It was composed of Woodrow Wilson of the United States, David Lloyd George of Britain, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy, and Georges Clemenceau of France.[2]


The term Big Four Conference may refer to one of several conferences between heads of state or foreign ministers of the victorious nations after World War I (1914–18) or during and after World War II (1939–45).


Post-World War I Edit


After World War I the term "big four" referred to France, Britain, the United States and Italy. The heads of state of these countries met at the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919. The Big Four were also known as the Council of Four. They were Woodrow Wilson of the United States, David Lloyd George of Britain, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy, and Georges Clemenceau of France.[1]


World War II Edit


See also: Declaration of the Four Nations

During World War II the term "Big Four" referred to the alliance of the US, UK, USSR and China. At the Second Moscow Conference in October 1943, Chinese Ambassador in Moscow Foo Ping-sheung joined foreign ministers Anthony Eden (UK), Cordell Hull (US) and Vyacheslav Molotov (Soviet Union) in the Declaration of the Four Nations, however China was not a party at the conference, at the request of the Soviet Union, and did not take part in the other Moscow Declarations.[2][3]


At the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in August 1944, representatives of the UK, US, Soviet Union and China, although never meeting all together directly, held talks on peace and post-war security and established the framework for the post-war United Nations organization.[4] The conversations were held in two phases, since the Soviets were unwilling to meet directly with the Chinese.[5] In the first phase, representatives of the Soviet Union, the UK and the US convened between August 21 and September 28. In the second, representatives of Republic of China, the UK and the US held discussions between September 29 and October 7. The representatives were Edward R. Stettinius, US Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Andrei Gromyko, American Ambassador to the US, Sir Alexander Cadogan,France Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (replaced by Lord Halifax for the second phase) and Ku Wei-chün, Chinese Ambassador to the US.[6]


In the talks on the format of the future United Nations organisation, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a post-war council, labelled the Four Policemen, expected to guarantee world peace, comprising China, Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. With the addition of France, this concept came to fruition as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.


Post-World War II Edit



Foreign ministers at the Potsdam Conference 2 August 1945: Vyacheslav Molotov, James F. Byrnes, Anthony Eden

1945 London and Moscow Edit

It was agreed at the Potsdam Conference (17 July – 2 August 1945) immediately after World War II to establish the Council of Foreign Ministers of the United States, Great Britain and the USSR to make peace treaties with the countries that had opposed Germany. This group first met in London in 1945, where disputes over the US occupation of Japan prevented much being achieved. The council met again in Moscow later in 1945 and agreed to prepare draft treaties with Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland.[7]


1946 Paris and New York Edit

France was admitted to the council in 1946.[7] A Big Four Conference of foreign ministers in June–July 1946 involved much haggling between the Soviet and Western ministers.[8] However, the attendees managed to agree on final treaties with Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland.[7]


Another conference of the foreign ministers was held in the Waldorf Astoria New York from 4 November to 12 December 1946.[9] Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Vice Foreign Minister Andrey Vyshinsky traveled to New York on the RMS Queen Elizabeth liner from Southampton, England.[10] Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin of the United Kingdom traveled to New York with his wife on the RMS Aquitania.[11] Other attendees were James F. Byrnes, US Secretary of State, and Maurice Couve de Murville as representative of France. Pathé News was given exclusive rights to provide newsreel coverage, and furnished duplicates to other newsreel companies.[12]


The conference was held in the private apartment of Waldorf chairman Lucius Boomer on the 37th story of the hotel.[12] During the conference President Harry S. Truman was asked if there were plans for a conference of the big four heads of state, but evaded the question.[13] The ministers finalized the texts of the peace treaties with Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland, for signature on 10 February 1947.[9] The difficulties about the Free Territory of Trieste were also resolved.[7]


1947 Moscow and London Edit

In March 1947 the Big Four foreign ministers met in Moscow. They were British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin, United States Secretary of State George Marshall, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, and French Foreign Minister Georges Bidault.[14] The meeting started on 10 March 1947. On 24 April 1947 it was reported that the meeting had ended, and the next meeting would be held in London.[15] The foreign ministers had agreed to formally dissolve the state of Prussia but had failed to agree on peace treaties with Germany and Austria.[7] In his closing speech Molotov replied to Marshall's accusation that Russia had caused the conference to fail.[15] The foreign ministers again failed to agree on peace treaties with Germany and Austria at a meeting in London in November–December 1947.[7]


1948–49 Paris Edit

A meeting was held in Paris in September 1948 over the status of the former Italian colonies, where no agreement was reached. The foreign ministers met once more in Paris in May–June 1949 and agreed to lift the Soviet blockage of Berlin. They could not agree on the reunification of Germany.[7]


1954–55 Cold War thaw Edit



Georges Bidault (France), Anthony Eden (UK) and John Foster Dulles (US)

1954 Berlin and Geneva Edit

Cold War tension relaxed after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and the end of the Korean War in 1953.[16] On 16 August 1953 the Soviet Union proposed a Big Four conference to discuss a German peace treaty that would reunite the nation.[17] The French agreed, and in December 1953 Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Britain, threw his weight behind a conference of the foreign ministers of the Big Four that would discuss how to progress with peace talks, or at least find a way to stabilize the present situation. President Dwight D. Eisenhower of the US was in favor of such a conference, at least as a gesture of good will, while his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was opposed.[18]


The Berlin Conference (25 January – 18 February 1954) was a meeting in Berlin of the Big Four foreign ministers: John Foster Dulles (US), Anthony Eden (UK), Georges Bidault (France), and Vyacheslav Molotov (Soviet Union). The ministers agreed to call a wider international conference to discuss a settlement to the recent Korean War and the ongoing Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh, but failed to reach agreement on issues of European security and the international status of Germany and Austria, then under four-power occupation following World War II. Little progress was made, except with Austria, from which the Soviets agreed to withdraw if it were made neutral.[19] Molotov proposed a 50-year security pact for Europe as an alternative to NATO. The Western ministers rejected this proposal out of hand.[20]


Eden managed to obtain agreement at the Berlin conference to hold a five-power conference, which would include China, to discuss Korea and Indochina.[21] Since the US refused to give China diplomatic recognition, this was changed into a Big Four conference on the Far East with China and the Viet Minh participating as parties affected by the conflicts.[22] The subsequent Geneva Conference (26 April – 20 July 1954) achieved a temporary peace in French Indochina and France's withdrawal from Vietnam, but formal peace in Korea remained elusive.[19] On 23 October 1954 the Soviet Union proposed another Big Four conference to discuss reunification of Germany and withdrawal of the occupying forces.[23]


1955 Vienna and Geneva Edit

Former Minister of Defense Nikolai Bulganin succeeded Georgy Malenkov as Premier of Russia on 8 February 1955. On 10 May 1955 the US, Britain and France proposed a Big Four conference of heads of state. Russia accepted on 14 May 1955. On 15 May 1955 the Big Four nations signed an Austrian peace treaty.[24] The treaty was signed at a meeting of the Big Four foreign ministers in Vienna.[7]



Eisenhower with Harold Stassen, main author of the "Open Skies" proposal, 22 March 1955

The Geneva Summit (1955) was held in Geneva, Switzerland between 18–23 July 1955, the first such meeting of heads of states since the Potsdam Conference.[16] Attendees included President Eisenhower of the United States, Prime Minister Anthony Eden of the United Kingdom, Premier Nikolai Bulganin of the Soviet Union, and Prime Minister Edgar Faure of France.[25] The Russians took a conciliatory stance at this conference.[26] The discussions covered subjects such as arms negotiations, trade barriers, diplomacy and nuclear warfare. They reflected the common goal of increased global security.[27] Eisenhower floated an "Open Skies" proposal, suggesting a reciprocal arrangement where the US and USSR could each fly planes over the other's territory to observe military installations.[28] On the last day the heads of state agreed on a follow-up conference in October to discuss German reunification, European security, disarmament and East-West relations.[29]


On 25 July 1955 President Eisenhower made a radio and television address to the American people on the Geneva Conference. He was guardedly optimistic about the results.[30] James Reston of The New York Times was less positive. He said "...the President ... has shunned specifics like the plague and his only interventions in the debate today [20 July] were general exhortations for everybody to get together." The next day he wrote "The Big Four conference is declining fast. What was advertised for weeks as a realistic private discussion of conflicting national interests, and started this week as a determined demonstration of international chumminess, developed today into a propaganda battle between the United States and the Soviet Union."[31]


A follow-up Big Four Conference was held in Geneva in October 1955 attended by the foreign ministers of the four powers: John Foster Dulles (US), Harold Macmillan (UK), Vyacheslav Molotov (USSR), and Antoine Pinay (France). The purpose was to resolve issues such as the recent "guns for cotton" agreement between Czechoslovakia and Egypt, and the demands by Israel for arms from the Western powers. Dulles accused the USSR of wantonly flouting the spirit of Geneva. The ministers also discussed German reunification, but made no progress.[32] They were also unable to agree on disarmament.[7]


Later meetings Edit


In July 1959 the foreign ministers met again in Geneva to try to resolve the escalating tensions over Berlin, but could not find a solution.[7] However, they agreed to resume the disarmament talks that had been suspended since 1957. This led to the 7 September 1959 resolution by the UN to create a Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament with representatives from Canada, France, Great Britain, Italy, the United States, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and the USSR.[33] The Ten-Nation Committee convened on 15 March 1960, but was dissolved when the Warsaw Pact members withdrew following the U-2 spy plane incident and subsequent break-down of the planned Big Four heads of state summit scheduled to start in Paris on 16 May 1960.[34]


On 3 April 1969 the main United Nations representatives of the Big Four powers met for four hours in New York to try to promote Middle-Eastern peace. The meetings were held in the apartment of French UN Ambassador Armand Bérard, who reprented France. UN Ambassador Charles Woodruff Yost represented the United States, Deputy Foreign Minister Yakov Malik represented the Soviet Union and British UN Delegate Hugh Foot, Baron Caradon represented Britain.[35] In June 1972 the foreign ministers signed an agreement that formalized the status of Berlin and laid the basis for East and West Germany to establish normal relations and to enter the United Nations.[7]


The Declaration of the Four Nations or the Four Power Declaration was signed on October 30, 1943 at the Moscow Conference by the Big Four: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China. The declaration formally established the four power framework that would later influence the international order of the postwar world.[1] It was one of four declarations signed at the conference; the other three were the Declaration on Italy, the Declaration on Austria, and the Declarations on Atrocities.[2]


History Edit


The Four Power Declaration was drafted by State Department advisers such as Cordell Hull and Sumner Welles, who presented it to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 10. Their proposal eschewed the regional councils preferred by Churchill in favor of establishing an international postwar organization. It omitted any discussion of the potentially controversial establishment of a permanent peacekeeping force after the war. Instead, its stated aim was simply the creation "at the earliest possible date of a general international organization."[3]


Roosevelt revealed the proposal to Churchill and Anthony Eden when they met at Quebec. The President stressed that the declaration would "in no way prejudice final decisions as to world order" and that the declaration was only an interim agreement. Churchill and Roosevelt reached a consensus that the Four Power Declaration should be given high priority at the Moscow Conference, whereas Stalin wanted the conference to focus on the ongoing war against Germany. The Russians also objected to the inclusion of the Republic of China as the fourth Great Power of the declaration; officially on the grounds that the Moscow Conference was planned as a meeting between three Great Powers (the US, UK, and the Soviet Union). Roosevelt suspected that Stalin's true motivations were to avoid antagonizing the Japanese, with whom they had signed a non-aggression pact in 1941. Churchill's view was that Stalin had a similar reluctance to recognize China as a Great Power.[3]


The Four Policemen refers to a post-war council consisting of the Big Four that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed as a guarantor of world peace. The members of the Big Four, called the Four Powers during World War II, were the four major Allies of World War II: the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union and China. The United Nations envisioned by Roosevelt consisted of three branches: an executive branch comprising the Big Four, an enforcement branch composed of the same four great powers acting as the Four Policemen or Four Sheriffs, and an international assembly representing the member nations of the UN.[1]


The Four Policemen would be responsible for keeping order within their spheres of influence: Britain in its empire and in Western Europe; the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the central Eurasian landmass; China in East Asia and the Western Pacific; and the United States in the Western hemisphere. As a preventive measure against new wars, countries other than the Four Policemen were to be disarmed. Only the Four Policemen would be allowed to possess any weapons more powerful than a rifle.[2] The Four Policemen came into fruition as the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, but its powers were significantly diminished as a compromise with internationalist critics.[3] France was later added as the fifth member of the council in 1945 due to the insistence of Churchill.



History Edit


Background Edit

See also: League of Nations

During World War II, President Roosevelt initiated post-war plans for the creation of a new and more durable international organization that would replace the former League of Nations. Prior to the war, Roosevelt had initially been a supporter of the League of Nations, but he lost confidence in the League due to its ineffectiveness at preventing the outbreak of the second World War. Roosevelt wanted to create an international organization that secured global peace through the unified efforts of the world's great powers, rather than through the Wilsonian notions of international consensus and collaboration that guided the League of Nations.[4] By 1935, he told his foreign policy adviser Sumner Welles: "The League of Nations has become nothing more than a debating society, and a poor one at that!"[5]


Roosevelt criticized the League of Nations for representing the interests of too many nations. The President said to the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov that "he could not visualize another League of Nations with 100 different signatories; there were simply too many nations to satisfy, hence it was a failure and would be a failure".[6] Roosevelt's proposal in 1941 was to create a new international body led by a "trusteeship" of great powers that would oversee smaller countries. In September 1941, he wrote:


In the present complete world confusion, it is not thought advisable at this time to reconstitute a League of Nations which, because of its size, makes for disagreement and inaction... There seem no reason why the principle of trusteeship in private affairs should be not be extended to the international field. Trusteeship is based on the principle of unselfish service. For a time at least there are many minor children among the peoples of the world who need trustees in their relations with other nations and people, just as there are many adult nations or peoples which must be led back into a spirit of good conduct.[4]


The State Department had begun drafting a postwar successor to the League of Nations under the auspices of Roosevelt while the United States was still formally a neutral power.[7] Roosevelt was reluctant to publicly announce his plans for creating a postwar international body. He was aware of the risk that the American public might reject his proposals, and he did not want to repeat Woodrow Wilson's struggle to convince the Senate to approve American membership in the League of Nations. When the Atlantic Charter was issued in August 1941, Roosevelt had ensured that the charter omitted mentioning any American commitment towards the establishment of a new international body after the war.[8] The attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 led to a change in Roosevelt's position. He transformed his trusteeship proposal into an organization centered around the Four Policemen: the United States, China, the Soviet Union, and Britain.[4]


Plans for the Four Policemen Edit


1943 sketch by Franklin Roosevelt of the United Nations' original three branches. The branch on the right represents the Four Policemen.

The idea that great powers should "police" the world had been discussed by President Roosevelt as early as August 1941, during his first meeting with Winston Churchill. Roosevelt made his first references to the Four Policemen proposal in early 1942.[9] He presented his postwar plans to Molotov,[10] who had arrived in Washington on May 29 to discuss the possibility of launching a second front in Europe.[11] Roosevelt told Molotov that the Big Four must unite after the war to police the world and disarm aggressor states.[9] When Molotov asked about the role of other countries, Roosevelt answered by opining that too many "policemen" could lead to infighting, but he was open to the idea of allowing other allied countries to participate.[9] A memorandum of the conference summarizes their conversation:


The President told Molotov that he visualized the enforced disarmament of our enemies and, indeed, some of our friends after the war; that he thought that the United States, England, Russia and perhaps China should police the world and enforce disarmament by inspection. The President said that he visualized Germany, Italy, Japan, France, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and other nations would not be permitted to have military forces. He stated that other nations might join the first four mentioned after experience proved they could be trusted.[6]


Roosevelt and Molotov continued their discussion of the Four Policemen in a second meeting on June 1. Molotov informed the President that Stalin was willing to support Roosevelt's plans for maintaining postwar peace through the Four Policemen and enforced disarmament. Roosevelt also raised the issue of postwar decolonization. He suggested that former colonies should undergo a period of transition under the governance of an international trusteeship prior to their independence.[10][12]


China was brought in as a member of the Big Four and a future member of the Four Policemen. Roosevelt was in favor of recognizing China as a great power because he was certain that the Chinese would side with the Americans against the Soviets. He said to British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, "In any serious conflict of policy with Russia, [China] would undoubtedly line up on our side." The President believed that a pro-American China would be useful for the United States should the Americans, Soviets, and Chinese agree to jointly occupy Japan and Korea after the war.[13] When Molotov voiced concerns about the stability of China, Roosevelt responded by saying that the combined "population of our nations and friends was well over a billion people."[6][10]


Churchill objected to Roosevelt's inclusion of China as one of the Big Four because he feared that the Americans were trying to undermine Britain's colonial holdings in Asia. In October 1942, Churchill told Eden that Republican China represented a "faggot vote on the side of the United States in any attempt to liquidate the British overseas empire."[14] Eden shared this view with Churchill and expressed skepticism that China, which was then in the midst of a civil war, could ever return to a stable nation. Roosevelt responded to Churchill's criticism by telling Eden that "China might become a very useful power in the Far East to help police Japan" and that he was fully supportive of offering more aid to China.[13]


Roosevelt's Four Policemen proposal received criticism from the liberal internationalists, who wanted power to be more evenly distributed among the member nations of the UN. Internationalists were concerned that the Four Policemen could lead to a new Quadruple Alliance.[3]


Formation of the United Nations Edit

On New Year's Day 1942, the representatives of Allied "Big Four", the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the Declaration by United Nations and the next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures.[15][16] A new plan for the United Nations was drafted by the State Department in April 1944. It kept the emphasis on great power solidarity that was central to Roosevelt's Four Policemen proposal for the United Nations. The members of the Big Four would serve as permanent members of the United Nation's Security Council. Each of the four permanent members would be given a United Nations Security Council veto power, which would override any UN resolution that went against the interests of one of the Big Four. However, the State Department had compromised with the liberal internationalists. Membership eligibility was widened to include all nation states fighting against the Axis powers instead of a select few. The Dumbarton Oaks Conference convened in August 1944 to discuss plans for the postwar United Nations with delegations from the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and China.[3] The Big Four was the only four sponsoring countries of the San Francisco Conference of 1945 and their heads of the delegations took turns as chairman of the plenary meetings.[17] During this conference, the Big Four and their allies signed the United Nations Charter.[18]


Legacy Edit


In the words of a former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sir Brian Urquhart:


It was a pragmatic system based on the primacy of the strong — a "trusteeship of the powerful," as he then called it, or, as he put it later, "the Four Policemen." The concept was, as [Senator Arthur H.] Vandenberg noted in his diary in April 1944, "anything but a wild-eyed internationalist dream of a world state.... It is based virtually on a four-power alliance." Eventually this proved to be both the potential strength and the actual weakness of the future UN, an organization theoretically based on a concert of great powers whose own mutual hostility, as it turned out, was itself the greatest potential threat to world peace.[19]


The Central Powers (German: Mittelmächte; Hungarian: Központi hatalmak; Turkish: İttifak Devletleri or Bağlaşma Devletleri; Bulgarian: Централни сили Tsentralni sili), consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria – hence also known as the Quadruple Alliance[1] (German: Vierbund) – was one of the two main factions during World War I (1914–18). It faced and was defeated by the Allied Powers that had formed around the Triple Entente. The Powers' origin was the alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1879. The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria did not join until after World War I had begun, although the Ottoman Empire retained close relations with both Germany and Austria-Hungary since the beginning of the 20th century.


The Central Powers consisted of the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the beginning of the war. The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers later in 1914. In 1915, the Kingdom of Bulgaria joined the alliance. The name "Central Powers" is derived from the location of these countries; all four (including the other groups that supported them except for Finland and Lithuania) were located between the Russian Empire in the east and France and the United Kingdom in the west. Finland, Azerbaijan, and Lithuania joined them in 1918 before the war ended and after the Russian Empire collapsed.


Steve Huey from AllMusic describes the song melody as a "four-note hook which sounds like something straight out of an early Beach Boys or Four Seasons song" that Roger Jouret (Plastic Bertrand) sings in a "dead-on falsetto".[