scholarly journals US Multilateral Aid in Transition: Implications for Development Cooperation

Author(s):  
Tony Pipa

AbstractThe United States, whose leadership through the Marshall Plan created the basis for modern-day development cooperation, has veered abruptly from its traditional role. An analysis of US funding trends shows that it has increasingly shifted from collective to specific interests, even as it has increased its multilateral aid. The United States is now actively shunning multilateral settings as part of its America First foreign policy, even when multilateral policies reinforce the international development priorities of the Trump administration, and its growing geopolitical competition with China is spilling into development assistance. This chapter explores the implications for development cooperation and whether these changes signal a more durable shift in US perspective.

2020 ◽  
pp. 73-92
Author(s):  
Dmytro Lakishyk

The article examines US policy towards West Germany after World War II, covering a historical span from the second half of the 1940s to the 1980s. It was US policy in Europe, and in West Germany in particular, that determined the dynamics and nature of US-German relations that arose on a long-term basis after the formation of Germany in September 1949. One of the peculiarities of US-German relations was the fact that both partners found themselves embroiled in a rapidly escalating international situation after 1945. The Cold War, which broke out after the seemingly inviolable Potsdam Accords, forced the United States and Germany to be on one side of the conflict. Despite the fact that both states were yesterday’s opponents and came out of the war with completely different, at that time, incomparable, statuses. A characteristic feature of US policy on the German question in the postwar years was its controversial evolution. The American leadership had neither a conceptual plan for development, nor a clear idea of Germany’s place in the world, nor an idea of how to plan the country’s future. However, the deterioration of relations between the USA and the USSR and the birth of the two blocs forced the US government to resort to economic revival (the Marshall Plan) and military-political consolidation of Western Europe and Germany (NATO creation). US policy toward Germany has been at the heart of its wider European policy. The United States favored a strong and united Western Europe over American hegemony, trying to prevent the spread of Soviet influence. Joint participation in the suppression of communism, however, could not prevent the periodic exacerbation of relations between the United States and Germany, and at the same time did not lead to an unconditional follow-up of the West Germans in the fairway of American foreign policy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-520

The article analyzes the phenomenon of the foreign policy presidency of D. Trump. Based on the approach of neorealism theory to the analysis of foreign policy, it is pointed to the significance of four variables in implementing foreign policy: the peculiarities of the perception by the heads of foreign policy, the strategic culture of the United States, the relations between the state and the society, and the role of domestic state institutions. The author concludes that the Trump administration eliminated a number of obstacles to unilateral foreign policy, putting America first. Trump and his administration were able to coined and launch a significant number of political initiatives that were contrary to the established priorities of the US foreign policy, but not all of the declared intentions had been implemented. However, this does not mean that the administration of Joe Baden will radically revise the main foreign policy ideas of the previous administration.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 270-272
Author(s):  
Paul Joffe

Thank you very much and welcome to everybody joining us. I am Paul Joffe, Foreign Policy Counsel at the World Resources Institute, and in the last twenty-four hours the news has been filled with stories of players at high levels in the Trump administration clashing over whether the United States should stay in the Paris Agreement. There's a story in this morning's Post about it, with the key players meeting next week and a decision expected in May. So, it seems that the Trump administration is working feverishly to raise suspense ahead of this morning's panel.


1980 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-54
Author(s):  
William Jansen

For readers who may not be familiar with the Agency for International Development, allow me to provide some background information. AID administers most of the foreign economic assistance programs of the United States government and is concerned primarily with direct, or "bilateral," assistance to other countries. Large scale United States assistance efforts began in, 1947 with the European Recovery Program (later known as the Marshall Plan) and were supplemented by the Point IV program in East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The 1954 Food for Peace Act provided food commodities to feed people in need overseas and, in the latter 1950's the Development Loan Program was begun so the United States could provide financial assistance to developing countries. Then, in 1961, most United States foreign assistance was consolidated in the newly established Agency for International Development.


1970 ◽  
pp. 32-44
Author(s):  
D. Lakishyk ◽  
D. Puhachova-Lakishyk

The article examines the formation of the main directions of the US foreign policy strategy at the beginning of the Cold War. The focus is on determining the vectors of the United States in relation to the spatial priorities of the US foreign policy, the particular interests in the respective regions, the content of means and methods of influence for the realization of their own geopolitical interests. It is argued that the main regions that the United States identified for itself in the early postwar years were Europe, the Middle and Far East, and the Middle East and North Africa were the peripheral ones (attention was also paid to Latin America). It is stated that the most important priorities of American foreign policy were around the perimeter of the zone of influence of the USSR, which entered the postwar world as an alternative to the US center  of power. Attention is also paid to US foreign policy initiatives such as the Marshall Plan and the 4th Point Program, which have played a pivotal role inshaping American foreign policy in the postwar period.


Author(s):  
Rickie Solinger

What is USAID’s family-planning program? The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent federal agency that provides economic, developmental, and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States. USAID’s family-planning programs reside within...


Author(s):  
Justus D. Doenecke

For the United States, isolationism is best defined as avoidance of wars outside the Western Hemisphere, particularly in Europe; opposition to binding military alliances; and the unilateral freedom to act politically and commercially unrestrained by mandatory commitments to other nations. Until the controversy over American entry into the League of Nations, isolationism was never subject to debate. The United States could expand its territory, protect its commerce, and even fight foreign powers without violating its traditional tenets. Once President Woodrow Wilson sought membership in the League, however, Americans saw isolationism as a foreign policy option, not simply something taken for granted. A fundamental foreign policy tenet now became a faction, limited to a group of people branded as “isolationists.” Its high point came during the years 1934–1937, when Congress, noting the challenge of the totalitarian nations to the international status quo, passed the neutrality acts to insulate the country from global entanglements. Once World War II broke out in Europe, President Franklin D. Roosevelt increasingly sought American participation on the side of the Allies. Isolationists unsuccessfully fought FDR’s legislative proposals, beginning with repeal of the arms embargo and ending with the convoying of supplies to Britain. The America First Committee (1940–1941), however, so effectively mobilized anti-interventionist opinion as to make the president more cautious in his diplomacy. If the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor permanently ended classic isolationism, by 1945 a “new isolationism” voiced suspicion of the United Nations, the Truman Doctrine, aid to Greece and Turkey, the Marshall Plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and U.S. participation in the Korean War. Yet, because the “new isolationists” increasingly advocated militant unilateral measures to confront Communist Russia and China, often doing so to advance the fortunes of the Republican party, they exposed themselves to charges of inconsistency and generally faded away in the 1950s. Since the 1950s, many Americans have opposed various military involvements— including the ones in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan— but few envision returning to an era when the United States avoids all commitments.


1993 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 223-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathal J. Nolan

Nolan reviews three works describing the influence of ethics on modern international relations, namely Code of Peace: Ethics and Security in the World of the Warlord States (Dorothy V. Jones); The Age of Rights (Louis Henkin); and Morality and American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ethics in International Affairs (Robert W. McElroy). All present timely academic and historical arguments for existing opportunities to bring ethics into world politics. Jones and Henkin concern themselves most with moral principles involved in establishing international law and organizations, while McElroy discusses the same issues from the unique perspective of U.S. foreign policy. Nolan gives full recognition to the traditional role of democratic states, particularly the United States., in shaping the moral norms of the international system in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries through ethics that are Western in origin but certainly not in their inherent content.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Sergio Colina Martín

In the last decade, the access to drinking water and sanitation have been acknowledged as human rights by the international community; they have also been recognized as a crucial goal for achieving sustainable development for all, in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. The need for international cooperation in those fields has gained new attention, and several multilateral actors and development agencies (including USAID and AECID) have consolidated or amplified their support to the WASH sector in developing countries. A comparative analysis of the different ways in which the United States and the Spanish cooperation conceive, design and implement their development programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean can contribute to a better understanding on the strategies to effectively protect and promote those human rights and to achieve SDG 6.


2020 ◽  
pp. 658-667
Author(s):  
Olha Kravchenko

The article describes and analyses the policy of the Trump administration towards Ukraine. Traditionally, the election of a new US President has some impact on the Washington’s position on Ukrainian issues, and the end of the presidential tenure serves as a reason to take stock of the results. Donald Trump’s presidency has not been marked by profound changes in the US foreign policy towards Ukraine, as it was inertially in line, for the most part, with the previous years. The American political establishment primarily views Ukraine through the prism of the security paradigm as a bulwark of deterring its global opponents, particularly Russia. Thus, the article deals with the challenges and prospects of the modern US policy towards Ukraine. The priorities of the US foreign policy towards Ukraine traditionally consist of the issues enshrined in the 2008 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. The article focuses on defence, security, and energy cooperation. In this regard, the United States remains the major guarantor of the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. In deterring the Russian aggression, the Trump administration generally follows the approach of the imposition of economic sanctions, launched during the presidency of Barack Obama. It is important to stress that the United States focuses not only on the problem of the armed conflict in Donbas but also on the attempted illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. At the same time, the focus on security issues has its negative repercussions, as it leads to certain limitations in bilateral relations, as evidenced by the lack of large-scale joint projects and weak trade and economic cooperation that impacts Ukraine’s position in the US foreign policy priorities. In the meantime, regardless of the name of the future US President, Washington’s support for Ukraine will be maintained. The close involvement of the United States in the negotiation process for the settlement of the conflict in Donbas and de-occupation of Crimea would significantly influence the course of events, but it is difficult to predict whether this prospect will become a reality. Keywords: US foreign policy towards Ukraine, Trump administration, strategic partnership, U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations, process of impeachment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document