Academic Analysis and U.S. Policy-Making on Africa: Reflections and Conclusions

1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-48
Author(s):  
David S. Wiley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
Private Foundations ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Voice

Late in the 1980s, several major U.S. private foundations concluded that the concern for Africa in the country was weak. This weakness was reflected in the faint focus on U.S. foreign policy toward Africa in all three branches of government, in the halting voice for Africa or for U.S. interests there in the non-governmental organizations (think-tanks, religious organizations, lobbies), and in the small concern for U.S. policy or for affecting it in the African studies scholarly community. Indeed, the voice for Africa in the United States was neither strong nor effective.

scholarly journals PUBLIC SECTOR INSTITUTIONS OF FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTISE IN UKRAINE:AN ANALYTICAL OVERVIEW

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 340-359
Author(s):  
Oleg Onopko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Political Mythology

An important condition for the effective protection and implementation by Russia of its national interests in Ukraine is an understanding of the circle of actors that influence the development of Ukrainian foreign policy. Among them, there are expert institutions that provide analytical and scientific support for foreign policy decisions made by the highest bodies of state power. For- eign policy expertise in Ukraine is a grey area for Russian political science. The article opens a series of publications whose purpose is to solve this problem. It systematizes information about Ukrainian institutes of foreign policy expertise, those whose activities are directly or indirectly financed by the state. It was revealed that during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych (2010– 2014), the public sector suffered significant structural damage, and its consequences have not yet been overcome. Today, Ukrainian public institutions of foreign policy expertise include: the National Institute for Strategic Studies, the Institute of World History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and university think tanks. The author considers these organizations through the prism of constructivism and institutionalism — as political structures (institutions) whose activities affect the context of Ukrainian foreign policy and the behavior of its actors. It has been established that their main scientific and applied research interests are related to problems of national, regional and international security, Russian domestic politics, problems of information, as well as military and political confrontation with Russia. All these issues are considered by institutions exclusively through the prism of Euro-Atlanticism and anti-Russian political mythology. Since at least 2014, they have been transmitting ideas hostile to Russia to the Ukrainian political and academic elite. In the same vein, the political socialization of students is carried out, in which university think tanks actively work in close collaboration with state and non-governmental organizations of NATO member countries. Today, the public sector of foreign policy expertise in Ukraine is not in the best condition, but it invariably retains its analytical and scientific potential, as well as its tough anti-Russian position.

scholarly journals The Role of Russia in the Formation of a Post-Pandemic World Order Timur B. Golam

2020 ◽  
pp. 27-36
Author(s):  
T.B. Golam ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
New World ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Social Aspects ◽  
New World Order ◽  
Present Stage

The article is devoted to the analysis of the role of Russia in the economic, political and social aspects of the СOVID-19 pandemic. The author considers publications of world leading research centers and think tanks as well as foreign policy decisions of leading world powers, considers relations between Russia and the United States as one of the most influential actors in the international struggle against the COVID-19 pandemic. Particular attention is paid to comparing different approaches to the international struggle against various epidemics and pandemics at the present stage. In conclusion the author makes a forecast on the possibility of the formation of a new world order in the post-pandemic period.

National Security Policy-Making and Cacophony of Voices in the Reagan Administration

1982 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-146
Author(s):  
P.M. Kamath
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
National Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
National Security Policy

In the post-World War II period “national security” has become the most important concept commanding respect among policy-makers and demanding crippling-silence on the part of the national community. It is not necessary here to examine the reasons1, for this commandeering position given to the concept of national security, but in an objective sense, foreign affairs of any nation in the ultimate analysis is conducted to secure national security. In this sense national security essentially denotes a nation's determination to preserve at any cost some of its interests. Foremost are : territorial integrity, political independence and fundamental governmental institutions.2 In the contemporary world it is also a well established fact that the military, diplomatic and economic aspects of a nation's foreign affairs are inseperably interlinked with one another. While foreign policy aims at serving national interest through peaceful diplomatic means, military policy aims at preparedness to protect national interest in case foreign policy fails. The foreign policy of a nation has also to take into consideration economic states involved in a particular policy consideration. This is particularly true for a super power like the United States. Hence, in a sense, it is appropriate to term the combination of foreign and military policies of a nation as national security policy. Who makes national security policy in the United States? What are the special features of national security policy-making process? It is proposed to answer these questions in this paper with special reference to the Reagan Administration.

Climate Change Politics in the United States: Melting of the Ice

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda Schreurs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
International Climate ◽  
Policy Direction ◽  
Climate Change Politics

AbstractThis article examines the efforts of the Obama administration and many other actors-ranging from non-governmental organizations, municipalities, and state governments to some Congressional representatives-to put the United States back on track towards international climate leadership. Efforts to shift policy direction, however, still face many hurdles. Over the course of the better part of a decade or more, climate skeptics and policy change opponents were able to seed doubt about the urgency of the issue in the public’s mind, establish new organizations and strategies to fight against climate action, and institutionalize serious obstacles to meaningful policy change.

The Boom

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew K. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Military Training ◽  
Cultural Exchange ◽  
The United States ◽  
Exchange Programs ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The U.S

This chapter traces the ways in which the United States launched its most coordinated effort to promote Iranian development during the 1970s. The educational cooperation of the decade prioritized military training, particularly for members of the Imperial Iranian Navy; technical assistance, notably through the training of Iranian nuclear engineers; and cultural exchange programs that were administered by the U.S. and Iranian states as well as non-governmental organizations.

The Strategy of Muslim Communities in Encountering Islamophobia in The United States

Afkaruna ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasbi Aswar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Muslim Community ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Muslim Countries ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Legal Advocacy ◽  
American Society ◽  
Muslim Communities

The number of Muslims in the United States is increasing from year to year as a result of the increasing number of immigrants from Muslim countries who come to work and continue their education as well as the increasing number of Muslims. One of the problems faced by the Muslim community in America today is Islamophobia such as bad narratives, discrimination, and violence against Muslims and their property. This study will examine the role of the Muslim community in America in dealing with the phenomenon of Islamophobia by explaining its strategy through the concept of Non-Governmental Organizations. The data used in this study is literature collected online from websites of Islamic groups in the United States. The results of this study showed that Islamic groups have taken many ways to deal with Islamophobia in this country, namely through political and legal advocacy, media relations, education, and campaigns to garner support and introduce Islam in American society.

America's Departments of State: Irregular and Regular Syndromes of Policy Making

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 911-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert A. Rockman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Modal Characteristics ◽  
Policy Syndromes ◽  
General Explanation

This article (1) sketches a general explanation for the growth of coordinative machinery and of irregular personnel in modern governments; (2) identifies both general and specific reasons for this phenomenon in the United States with special reference to foreign policy making; (3) identifies within the American foreign policy-making context the modal characteristics of irregular and regular syndromes of policy making, and the conjunction between personnel and institutional base; (4) traces the implications arising from these different policy syndromes; and (5) evaluates some proposals for improving the coherence and knowledge base of American foreign policy making. The problems of defining foreign policy authority, assuring an integrated perspective, and effectively using specialized expertise are best seen in terms of the larger problem of governance in Washington against which all proposals for reform must be abraded.

America’s Global Imperium

2021 ◽  
pp. 1217-1248
Author(s):  
Andrew Preston
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Dimension ◽  
Economic Relationships ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Political Alliances ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
Private Corporations

After 1945, and especially after 1989, the United States wielded overwhelming power on a previously unimaginable global dimension. The scale and reach of America’s unprecedented power transcends the normal confines of the nation-state. US officials, often in conjunction with private corporations and non-governmental organizations, manage a vast international network of political alliances, legal obligations, diplomatic treaties, economic relationships, and military commitments, all for the purpose of maintaining a world system established by presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman during the 1940s. It is this dominant position that has led observers to describe the United States in imperial terms. This view of the modern United States as an imperialist power is based on the theory that empire does not have to be based on the control of territory. In this sense, if the twentieth-century United States was an imperial power, it was an extra-territorial one. However, this theory of empire is not universally shared, and so this chapter also assesses the competing historiographical and theoretical claims as to whether the modern United States has been an empire; and, if it is, what kind. The most common type of imperialism associated with the modern United States is liberal empire.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document