Nationalism and Post-Communist International Relations

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert English ◽  
Ekaterina Svyatets ◽  
Azamat Zhanalin
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Ethnic Conflict ◽  
Economic Transition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Central Eurasia ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Policies

Nationalism contributed to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and helped put an end to the epoch-defining East–West rivalry, while ethnic conflict rearranged borders and peoples across the post-communist regions. After these initial shocks, however, most international relations (IR) scholars saw a region that was generally on a path toward political stabilization and international integration. This belief was reflected in the predominance of research on democratization and civil society, privatization and economic transition, and integration with the European Union. Nearly two decades after the collapse of communism, a simmering ethnic conflict in Georgia has sparked another major geopolitical shift. Nationalism remains a potent force not only in the post-Soviet and post-communist regions, but also for IR more generally, in the “normal” politics of parties and elections, development and trade, foreign policy making, and even war making. Regarding the politics of eastern Europe and central Eurasia, at least three distinct international dimensions of post-communist nationalism can be identified: the immediate impact of national or ethnic conflict on state-to-state relations as well as conflict spillover; nationalism’s impact on the foreign policies of states, the ways in which domestic ethnic issues can shape foreign policy debates and decisions; and the transnational spread of nationalist ideology. Present circumstances offer an opportunity not only to end the animosity and even reverse the hardening of antagonistic post-Cold War identities, but also to assess the respective impact of cultural–historical, economic, and leadership factors on the ongoing development of national identity and nationalism.

The Soviet Union and World Peace

1946 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-474
Author(s):  
N. S. Timasheff
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
World Peace ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Post War

On the two victory days, military action on the fronts stopped. But peace did not return, nor does anyone know when it will. Peace is not simply absence of military .ction. It is a state of international relations corresponding to “periods of normalcy” in the internal affairs of a nation. Peace exists, when these relations are dominated by good will, mutual understanding and friendly cooperation.The post-war world longs for peace. But there is no peace because, among the sovereign states, there is one which acts against peace. This is the Soviet Union. Is it, however, certain that the foreign policy of the Soviets is aggressive? Is it not true that, in Moscow, aggressiveness is ascribed to the United States and to the alleged Western bloc headed by it?In March, 1946, Professor E. Tarle, an authoritative spokesman of the Soviet government, placed in opposition “the old imperialistic concept of international relations” practiced by London and Washington and “the Soviet conception which is based on respect for the rights of the peoples and their real independence.”

scholarly journals Twenty Years of Building International Relations on the Territory of the CIS: the Polish Perspective

2012 ◽  
pp. 287-296
Author(s):  
A. Kovalchuk
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Cis Countries

The article presents the main issues of international relations in the post-soviet area since the collapse of the Soviet Union, perceived by Polish political scientists as critical to the modern structure of relations in the region. Russia's foreign policy towards the CIS countries is the main aspects of discussion. The following issues relate to the bilateral relations with Russia, and domestic situation of former Soviet countries, as well as the institutionalization of cooperation within the CIS.

scholarly journals “Bread for the People and National Security”: Soviet commercial diplomacy during the period of détente

2021 ◽  
pp. 103-119
Author(s):  
Dar'ya Viktorovna Yakupova ◽  
Roman Aleksandrovich Yakupov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People

The relevance of this research is defined by the need for analyzing the historical experience of adaptation of foreign economic activity of the Soviet State to the challenges of Western policy deterrence, the imperatives of which are being applied to Russia in the current context. The subject of this research is the Soviet grain procurement crisis and foreign policy ways for its overcoming. The object of this research is trade and diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. The scientific novelty lies in elaboration of the concept of “commercial diplomacy” – the foreign economic activity of the USSR government aimed at solution of the domestic problems and tasks of modernization. Leaning on the newly introduced sources, the conclusion is made that the policy of commercial diplomacy implemented by the Soviet Union suggested the use of international dialogue within the framework of cooperation between the governments and public-private business circles on achieving the economic goals associated with the national interests of the Soviet Union. The critical need for grain procurement, discovery of the oil resources potential, and détente in the international relations between the two superpowers led to a new round in the Soviet Union – United States relations. It is underlined that grain and oil manifested as the factor of maintaining domestic political stability and the object of foreign policy exchange. The article answers the question: how the grain procurement problem has transformed from the economic into social issue, and the grain import has become the vulnerable spot of the Soviet Union in the ideological confrontation with the United States, and the object of international relations.

Religious Freedom and the New Evangelical Foreign Policy Lobby

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-94
Author(s):  
Lauren Frances Turek
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spiritual Beliefs ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Wide Range

This chapter explores how evangelical internationalism developed into a focused vision for U.S. foreign relations that provided the foundation for political advocacy on a wide range of global issues by the late 1970s and early 1980s. It argues that a powerful evangelical foreign policy emerged in response to growing anxieties about developments in international relations. It also explains how evangelicals drew on their connections with coreligionists abroad and combined their spiritual beliefs with human rights language in order to build support among policymakers for the cause of international religious liberty. The chapter reflects the layered and multimodal nature of evangelical internationalist development and of the foreign policy challenges that evangelical activists confronted. It also reveals how evangelical leaders, missionaries, and interest groups drew on their political power and the international evangelical network to shape international relations and national policies in the United States, the Soviet Union, Guatemala, and South Africa.

No War Without Dictatorship, No Peace Without Democracy: Foreign Policy as Domestic Politics

1985 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-191
Author(s):  
Aaron Wildavsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Structural Basis ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Government

I wish to consider the possibility that a good part of the opposition to the main lines of American foreign policy is based on deep-seated objections to the political and economic systems of the United States. This is not to say that existing policy is necessarily wise or that there may not be good and sufficient reasons for wishing to change it. Indeed, at any time and place, the United States might well be overestimating the threat from the Soviet Union or using too much force. What I wish to suggest is that across-the-board criticism of American policy as inherently aggressive and repressive, regardless of circumstance – a litany of criticism so constant that it does not alert us to the need for explanation – has a structural basis in the rise of a political culture that is opposed to existing authority.To the extent that this criticism is structural, that is, inherent in domestic politics, the problem of fashioning foreign policies that can obtain widespread support is much more difficult than it is commonly perceived to be. For if the objection is to American ways of life and, therefore, “to the government for which it stands,” only a transformation of power relationships at home, together with a vast redistribution of economic resources, would satisfy these critics. If the objection is not only to what we do but, more fundamentally, to who we are, looking to changes in foreign policy to shore up domestic support is radically to confuse the causal connections and, therefore, the order of priorities.

Complicated History

2011 ◽  
pp. 87-96
Author(s):  
T. Nosenko
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Major Event ◽  
World Community ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of

The article deals with preconditions and implications of a major event in the history of international relations of our country, namely – the restoration of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Israel. This development, which took place in 1989, on the eve of the demise of the Soviet Union, must be viewed as a result of the general review of the whole system of interstate relationships that had dominated Moscow’s foreign policy for decades. It was part of a major change destined to restructure Russia’s role in the world community.

scholarly journals The Future of World Order: Building a Community of Common Destiny

2017 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 159-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Yakunin
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Common Destiny

This article briefly examines the political and ideological aspects of Western countries’ post-Cold War approach to the world order. The Western triumph in the Cold War is generally attributed to reasons that are largely erroneous. The ongoing crises in international relations reveal structural inconsistencies, which have been present in the United States’ foreign strategy since the collapse of the Soviet Union and have contributed to the subsequent erosion of the global order. The article analyzes the new trends of globalization resulting from the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It concludes that Russia and China have now largely recognized Washington’s failure to establish a unipolar world system and to legitimize it through various political and media mechanisms and techniques. It suggests that it is only through the solidary development that both China and Russia are currently championing with their recent grand integration initiatives that a more successful and sustainable multipolar world benefiting every nation on the planet can be built and maintained.

21. US Predominance and the Search for a Post-Cold War Order

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Young ◽  
John Kent
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Rogue States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The One ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter focuses on the United States’s predominance and the search for order in the post-Cold War period. George H. W. Bush, who came to power in January 1989, concentrated on world affairs and had a series of foreign successes before the end of 1991. Bush’s cautious, pragmatic, orderly approach carried both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand he escaped any major disasters abroad and avoided antagonizing the Soviet Union or rekindling the Cold War. On the other hand, he seemed to be undynamic and at the mercy of events — he failed to provide a sense of overall direction to US foreign policy once the Cold War ended. The chapter first considers US foreign policy in the 1990s before discussing the Gulf War of 1990–1991, US–Soviet relations in the 1990s, US policy towards the ‘rogue states’ during the time of Bill Clinton, and ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Somalia and Haiti.

21. US Predominance and the Search for a Post-Cold War Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 503-533
Author(s):  
John W. Young ◽  
John Kent
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Rogue States ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter focuses on the predominance of the US and the search for order in the post-Cold War period. George H. W. Bush, who came to power in January 1989, concentrated on world affairs and had a series of foreign successes before the end of 1991. Bush’s cautious, pragmatic, approach carried both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, he escaped any major disasters abroad and avoided antagonizing the Soviet Union or rekindling the Cold War. On the other, he seemed to be undynamic and at the mercy of events—he failed to provide a sense of overall direction to US foreign policy once the Cold War ended. The chapter first considers US foreign policy in the 1990s, before discussing the Gulf War of 1990–1, US–Soviet relations in the 1990s, US policy towards the ‘rogue states’ during the time of Bill Clinton, and ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Somalia and Haiti.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document