Mutual Economic Interdependence and Military Occupation: Evidences of United States Passive and Active Strategies in Iraq for Oil Security

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Neeladri Chatterjee
1981 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 478
Author(s):  
J. R. Williams ◽  
Peter Morici

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaejoon Kwon

The author examines the process of racial knowledge creation within the context of U.S. empire and its military occupation of southern Korea from 1945 to 1948. The author uses a postcolonial sociohistorical approach to analyze archival sources authored by U.S. military occupation administrators, advisers, and journalists. The author argues that the U.S. military occupation was in practice colonialism, and that the United States pulled racial knowledge gained through previous colonial experiences and from British and Japanese empires to construct the racial script of the “Irish of the Orient.” Through this script, the United States justified the need for a military occupation by reading Koreans through colonial constructions of Irish drunkenness and joviality as well as Filipino immaturity. Conversely, the script signaled the potential of Koreans to eventually become democratic subjects. Through the metaphor of the “Irish of the Orient,” the author finds that the racial formation of Koreans during the U.S. military occupation exemplified the relational, nonlinear, and transcolonial process of racial formation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Marston

Despite exhaustive efforts by scholars, archaeologists, and national and international organisations the United States chose not to protect the National Museum of Iraq, but to send its troops to guard the Oil Ministry and oil fields instead. As a result, the National Museum was looted. No attempts were made to stop the looting; orders were specifically given not to do so. Looting at archaeological sites increased significantly during the invasion and in the lawlessness and chaos which characterised the occupation of Iraq. The United States forces as occupiers had an obligation to prevent the plunder and looting, but they failed to do so. Further, they participated in the destruction of some sites through military occupation and irresponsible construction. As a result, many sites were partially or completely destroyed, and parts of others have been rendered useless for further archaeological research. It necessarily follows that knowledge has been lost and humankind is the poorer for it.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-126
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson

International relations scholarship overwhelmingly expects that relatively rising states will threaten and challenge declining great powers. In practice, however, rising states can also cooperate with and support declining powers. What explains the rising state's choice of policy? When do rising states support or prey on declining great powers, and why do such strategies vary across time and space? The answer depends on the rising state's broader strategic calculations. All things being equal, a rising state will generally support a declining power when the latter can be used to offset threats from other great powers that can harm the rising state's security. Conversely, when using a declining state to offset such challenges is not a plausible option, the rising state is likely to pursue a predation strategy. The level of assertiveness of support or predation, meanwhile, depends on the declining power's military posture: the stronger the declining state is militarily, the less assertive the rising state tends to be. A review of the strategies adopted by two relatively rising powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, toward a declining Great Britain after 1945, and of a rising United States vis-à-vis a declining Soviet Union in the late Cold War, illustrates how this argument outperforms explanations that focus instead on the importance of economic interdependence and ideology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document