Twenty Years of U.S. Policy on North Korea: From Agreed Framework to Strategic Patience: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, July 30, 2014

1959 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 439
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright ◽  
Holbert N. Carroll

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 85-105
Author(s):  
Steven Hugh Lee

AbstractSince December 1997, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the United States have met in a series of talks aimed at promoting peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region. According to a November 1998 U.S. Department of Defense report, the discussions have created a “diplomatic venue for reducing tensions and ultimately replacing the Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace settlement.”1 Amidst the tragic human suffering which has occurred in North Korea, there have been some encouraging developments on the peninsula. The 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea placed international controls on North Korea’s atomic energy program and cautiously anticipated the normalization of U.S.-DPRK relations. Since assuming power in early 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has vigorously pursued a policy of engagement with P’yo¨ngyang, known as the “sunshine policy.” Over the past decade, North Korea has also reoriented its foreign policy. In the early 1990s, the regime’s social and economic crisis led to a rethinking of its autarkic economic system. By early 1994, the state had created new free trade zones and relatively open foreign investment laws.2 By complying with the Agreed Framework, the DPRK has also shown a willingness to work with the international community on sensitive issues affecting its internal sovereignty and ability to project power beyond its borders.


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-106
Author(s):  
Khaled Elgindy

This essay looks at the hearing held by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in April 1922 on the subject of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as well as the broader congressional debate over the Balfour Declaration at that crucial time. The landmark hearing, which took place against the backdrop of growing unrest in Palestine and just prior to the League of Nations' formal approval of Britain's Mandate over Palestine, offers a glimpse into the cultural and political mindset underpinning U.S. support for the Zionist project at the time as well as the ways in which the political discourse in the United States has, or has not, changed since then. Despite the overwhelming support for the Zionist project in Congress, which unanimously endorsed Balfour in September 1922, the hearing examined all aspects of the issue and included a remarkably diverse array of viewpoints, including both anti-Zionist Jewish and Palestinian Arab voices.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-87
Author(s):  
David Beirman

The October 2002 Bali bombing was a catalyst for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to radically alter its approach to the content and dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Integral to DFAT’s post-Bali strategy was its decision to seek the collaborative support of the Australian outbound travel industry leadership to broaden dissemination of travel advisories to outbound Australian travellers. Although initial contacts between DFAT and the Australian travel industry leaders in early 2003 were contentious, subsequent negotiations resulted in the world’s first signed agreement between a foreign ministry and a national travel industry leadership in June 2003. The initial agreement, the Charter for Safe Travel involved the Australian travel industry’s commitment to disseminate DFAT travel advisories in exchange for a viable consultative role in their content. Australia’s collaborative model was adopted in the UK from 2004, in Canada from 2005 and New Zealand since 2016. Globally, consultation between national travel industry leaders and national foreign ministries is rare, despite the support of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the World Travel and Tourism Council and the Pacific Asia Travel Association. Through participant observation research, in the context of collaboration and stakeholder theories, this article discusses the evolution of a consultative relationship between DFAT and the Australian outbound travel industry leadership and other relevant stakeholders between 2003 and 2017. The observations made in this study reveal that collaborative consultation has achieved positive changes to travel advisories which feature regionally specific, timely and comprehensible content. These qualitative enhancements have been complemented by enhanced dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Australia’s Consular Consultative Group serves as a working model for similar collaboration, in the interests of global tourism safety.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document