From friend to foe: Post-9/11 Pakistan–US relations; a realist perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 205789112110079
Author(s):  
Syed Muhammad Saad Zaidi ◽  
Azhar Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
The Us ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
The Belt And Road ◽  
Realist Perspective

The relations between Pakistan and the United States, throughout the course of history, have witnessed many ups and downs. At times, when their interests were aligned, strong socio-economic and military cooperation was seen between the two states. Yet, on other occasions they were at odds with and distant from each other. However, post 9/11, Pakistan–US relations were at its zenith, when Pakistan became the frontline ally of the US in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and the US granted Pakistan the prestigious status of non-NATO ally. Soon after, though, the partnership between the two states was in troubled waters: when the US repeatedly violated Pakistan’s sovereignty through drone strikes and covert ops, it diplomatically painted Pakistan as the bad guy by claiming it to be part of the problem (terrorism), not the solution, and by promoting India within the region. Furthermore, when Pakistan became part of China’s New Silk Road initiative, commonly known as the Belt and Road Initiative, Pakistan–US relations saw its lowest point in history. This article critically analyzes post-9/11 Pakistan–US relations by application of two mainstream theories of international relations in tandem: Realism and (Neo)structural Realism. Realism explains the US foreign policy rationale, while Structural Realism explains Pakistan’s foreign policy choices in relation to the US.

scholarly journals THE GENESIS OF THE US FOREIGN POLICY: THE ORIGIN OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE TOPIC, 1610–1820S

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (73) (2) ◽  
pp. 81-93
Author(s):  
D. V. Dorofeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
North American ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us

The research is devoted to the study of the origin of the historiography of the topic of the genesis of the US foreign policy. The key thesis of the work challenges the established position in the scientific literature about the fundamental role of the work of T. Lyman, Jr. «The diplomacy of the United States: being an account of the foreign relations of the country, from the first treaty with France, in 1778, to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, with Great Britain», published in 1826. The article puts forward an alternative hypothesis: the emergence of the historiography of the genesis of the foreign policy of the United States occurred before the beginning of the second quarter of the XIX century – during the colonial period and the first fifty years of the North American state. A study of the works of thirty-five authors who worked during the 1610s and 1820s showed that amater historians expressed a common opinion about North America’s belonging to the Eurocentric system of international relations; they were sure that both the colonists and the founding fathers perceived international processes on the basis of raison d’être. The conceptualization of the intellectual heritage of non-professional historians allowed us to distinguish three interpretations of the origin of the United States foreign policy: «Autochthonous» – focused on purely North American reasons; «Atlantic» – postulated the borrowing of European practice of international relations by means of the system of relations that developed in the Atlantic in the XVII–XVIII centuries; «Imperial» – stated the adaptation of the British experience. The obtained data refute the provisions of scientific thought of the XX–XXI centuries and create new guidelines for further study of the topic.

scholarly journals CEEC’s-China mechanism of cooperation and the belt and road initiative: From idea to institutionalisation - six years later

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-336
Author(s):  
Dusko Dimitrijevic ◽  
Nikola Jokanovic
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Development ◽  
Development Strategy ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
Policy Position ◽  
Belt And Road Initiative ◽  
Intergovernmental Cooperation ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
The Belt And Road

The paper analyzes the process of institutionalization of intergovernmental cooperation and coordination of state policies through the mechanism of cooperation between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) and China, known in the public as ?16 + 1? (i.e., ?17 + 1? starting in 2019). Through an eclectic picture of the development of contemporary international relations, the authors indicate in a methodologically accessible manner that this mechanism of cooperation is a significant impetus for the development of international relations. Since China has taken a dominant role in redefining the Global Management System, whose goals are balanced and sustainable international development, to achieve them, China has identified certain ideological frameworks that are present in its foreign policy through the Belt and Road Initiative. Through this Initiative, China seeks to achieve the broader goals of the New Silk Road development strategy, which not only determines the directions of China?s internal development, but provides guidance for its strategic cooperation with neighbouring countries as well as with countries on other continents. Consequently, the mechanism itself thus plays an important role in strengthening China?s foreign policy position, not only with respect to CEEC, but also with respect to other European countries, including the EU as a whole.

scholarly journals International Relations with Chinese Characteristics

2019 ◽  
Vol 01 (02) ◽  
pp. 1950006
Author(s):  
Ralph Pettman
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
The State ◽  
Belt And Road Initiative ◽  
Chinese Characteristics ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
China’S Foreign Policy ◽  
The Belt And Road

International relations, as currently construed, are multi-dimensional. They are also Euro-American, which means modern-day China had no hand in making them. It was obliged to adapt to the state-centered, marketeering, nationalistic realities with which it was confronted when it became independent. And adapt it did. It also, however, revised these realities by adopting its own approach. Its leaders first repudiated China’s traditional experiences, while reworking its world ones to promote their own ends. Later, however, they began to express admiration for the values and vision of their own culture and civilization. They began to articulate policies, like the Belt and Road Initiative, that were not only representative of Euro-American principles, such as international cooperation and free trade, but also representative of non-Euro-American principles, such as the so-called “tribute system”. The latter characterized China’s foreign policy approach for millennia. It still arguably demonstrates China’s willingness not only to accept — while reforming — those Euro-American practices imposed upon it, but also to repudiate — by revolutionizing — those very same practices.

scholarly journals European Union integration and the belt and road initiative: A curious case of Serbia

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-355
Author(s):  
Mihajlo Vucic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Belt And Road Initiative ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
Accession Process ◽  
The Belt And Road ◽  
The Eu

The topic of this article is the Serbian foreign policy between its main strategic aims - membership in the European Union, and cooperation with China in the framework of the Belt and Road initiative. Serbia bases its foreign policy upon four pillars - the accession process to the EU and three strategic partnerships with great world powers - China, the United States of America, and Russia. However, the accession process to the EU requires from Serbia to strictly follow its obligations from the Stabilization and Association Agreement, Treaty Establishing the Transport Community, and other treaties signed with the EU which might sometimes conflict with project activities from the Belt and Road partnership process. These obligations relate mostly to competition and environmental protection. The author gives the analysis of the main points of possible conflict and indicates a double standard in the EU approach to the Belt and Road initiative. Then he presents arguments that indicate the Belt and Road can serve as a bridge between candidate countries and the EU internal market. The author concludes that although there exist some structural justifications to EU?s skepticism towards the Belt and Road, the best way to overcome them is to insist on political dialogue on many existing levels between the EU and China, with the aim to exchange information between them on EU rules, policies and standards to make sure Chinese investments and other financial activities in Serbia are in accordance with its accession obligations.

The New World From an American Viewpoint

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Т. Лефко
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Resource Dependency ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
Military Power ◽  
Climate Control ◽  
Nature Of Technology ◽  
The Us ◽  
Basic Issue ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
The Belt And Road

Мир меняется, время доминирования Америки проходит. Россия, Китай и Штаты вступают в новые взаимоотношения. Природа технологий и инвестиций определяет никогда ранее в истории не встречавшиеся критерии социального, политического и военного превосходства. Технические возможности растут вне зависимости от роста моральной ответственности.Притязания Америки на лидерскую позицию подвергаются сомнению, в тот же момент, когда сомнению подвергается и власть внутри страны. Статус России, как одной из крупнейших военных держав, оспаривается. Стремление Китая к господству наталкивается на внутренние преграды — зависимость от импорта ресурсов, реакцию инициативы «Один пояс и один путь», экономическое давление. Основополагающий принцип доминирования демократического устройства общества под вопросом из-за повсеместного распространения авторитарных форм правления.Планирование стабильного развития перешло в разряд категорий теории сложности.Новые задачи -- контроль климата, пандемия, кибер-угрозы, негосударственные террористические группировки, внутренние экономические раздоры -- вместе не позволяют выработать действующий сценарий стабильного развития.Традиционные политические, экономические и религиозные учения не дают ответы на заданные обществом вопросы.В статье обсуждаются эти факторы и описываются сложности, с которыми сталкиваются Россия, Китай и Соединенные Штаты. As the world shifts from an American-dominated presence, the roles of Russia, China and the US enter a new relationship. The nature of technology and investment will determine social, political, and military power, in a form not previously viewed in history.Technological capability develops at an unrelated pace to moral considerations.American assumptions of continuing world leadership are being challenged at the very moment when internal American governance is being challenged.Russian desires to remain an international force are questioned in many quarters.Chinese desires for world leadership face internal issues of resource dependency, reaction to the Belt and Road Initiatives, and economic pressures. The basic issue of democratic governance is under threat from growing worldwide authoritarianism.Planning for stability has entered a realm of complexity theory, with challenges such as climate control, pandemics, cyber threats, terrorism by non-state actors,and growing internal economic divisions do not allow a clear theory for guaranteed growth and abundance.Traditional political, religious and economic theories have not provided answers to a world which seeks solutions.The article discusses these factors and describes the difficulties facing Russia, China, and the United States.

Strategic ambiguity and the Trumpian approach to China–Taiwan relations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hoo Tiang Boon ◽  
Hannah Elyse Sworn
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Ambiguity ◽  
Common View ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Us ◽  
Personalized Approach ◽  
The Taiwan Strait ◽  
Realist Perspective

Abstract The notion of strategic ambiguity has long guided the United States’ engagement in cross-strait relations, requiring that Washington is intentionally unclear about whether and how it would intervene in a China-Taiwan conflict in order to preserve a balance of assurance and deterrence for both sides. This article unpacks the US approach to strategic ambiguity under Trump. Adopting a neo-classical realist perspective, it argues that domestic and individual level drivers-in particular, US populism, Congress and the foreign policy establishment, and Trump's transactional and personalized approach to foreign policy-have interacted with the shifting US-China balance of power to produce a different mode of American strategic ambiguity in the Taiwan Strait. A common view is that as a function of the growing US-China power competition, the US has largely leaned towards Taiwan in recent years. Our analysis revises this assessment by revealing a form of strategic ambiguity under Trump that, despite appearing to upset the balance of ambiguity in favour of Taiwan-paradoxically and probably unintentionally-maintains assurances and warnings for both China and Taiwan. Yet, while Trump has arguably preserved the overall balance of strategic ambiguity, he has introduced greater volatility into cross-strait relations.

scholarly journals Islamic Identity and Foreign Policy Discourse: Indonesia’s Responses to the US War in Afghanistan (2001-2002)

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agus Salim
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Policy Discourse ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Dual Identity ◽  
The Us ◽  
Islamic Identity ◽  
Global War

Observers of Indonesia’s foreign policy commonly argue that while the state needs to include domestic Muslim interests in its foreign policy formulation, foreign policy officials have rarely considered Islam in their policy choices, with a dual-identity predicament constraining such a move. This article challenges this argument by demonstrating that foreign policy leaders have begun referring to Islamic identity and norms when justifying Indonesia’s foreign policy choices. By discussing Indonesia’s foreign policy responses to the United States’ war in Afghanistan in 2001, this paper elucidates the way in which Indonesia’s foreign policy leaders have constructed Islam as an “inclusive civilizational” identity in their foreign policy discourse, legitimizing their alliance with the global war on terrorism amid staunch domestic Muslim opposition to the war. They managed to turn identity constraint into opportunity by framing their policies within the context of “inclusive” and “integrative” Islamic values and norms.

scholarly journals The Mask Diplomacy of China in Southeast Asia

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1(50)) ◽  
pp. 73-81
Author(s):  
Natalia G. Rogozhina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Belt And Road Initiative ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Territorial Conflict ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
China’S Foreign Policy ◽  
The Belt And Road ◽  
Southeast Asian Countries

The article notes that China's mask diplomacy in Southeast Asia is an integral part of its foreign policy aimed at strengthening its positions in the region by increasing the level of confidence. By providing assistance to Southeast Asian countries in the fight against COVID-19, China hopes to improve its image of a “benevolent” neighbor in the region. At the same time, the priority was given to those countries of Southeast Asia with which the closest relations have developed and which are participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. In the development of the achieved success in mask diplomacy, China is moving to the implementation of the so-called vaccine diplomacy in Southeast Asia. However, despite the currently pronounced humanitarian orientation of China's foreign policy in Southeast Asia, the continuing territorial conflict in the South China Sea plays against its positive image in the region as “generous sponsor”. Time will tell whether mask diplomacy will help China gain an edge in the competition for influence in the region. But one thing is clear – China is acting decisively and does not miss a single chance to provide support for the countries of Southeast Asia in the competition with the United States.

IR-Theory and Transformation in the Greater Middle East: the Role of the United States

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 57-86
Author(s):  
Henk Houweling ◽  
Mehdi Parvizi Amineh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Liberal Theory ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Policy Choices

AbstractThis article analyzes why post-Cold War American foreign policy regarding the Greater Middle East (GME) changed course and why the United States having a virtual military monopoly fails to achieve its war aim in Iraq. To that end, the authors consult realist and liberal theory in international relations. Realists have a security-driven policy agenda. They fail to create a micro-level foundation in political man for the posited collective interest at the level of the state. Realists therefore produce indeterminate results. Liberal theory in international relations does have a micro-foundation in explanations of foreign policy choices in the form of the economic man. Liberal scholars therefore inquire into domestic sources of foreign policy decisions. However, the liberal national interest is not just a summation of private actor interests. These dominant approaches therefore fail to explain US foreign policy choices and policy outcomes in the region under study.The three quotations below create the problematic of this study:Today we are presented with a unique strategic opportunity. For more than 50 years we were constrained by a bipolar rivalry with a superpower adversary. Today and tomorrow, we have an opportunity to pursue a strategy of engagement and to design a military force to help the strategy succeed. I fully agree with the defense strategy of helping to shape the environment to promote US interests abroad.John Shalikashvili, Clinton's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997)[Y]ou live now in the Mohammedan nation which, if the traveler's accounts are to be believed, is intelligent and even refined. What is this irredeemable decadence dragging it down through the centuries? Is it possible that we have risen while they remain static? I do not think so. I rather think that the dual movement has occurred in opposite directions […] European races are often the greatest rogues, but at least they are rogues to whom God gave the will and the power and whom he seems to have destined for some time to be at the head of mankind […] the European is to other races of mankind what man himself is to the lower animals: he makes them subservient to his use, and when he cannot subdue he destroys them.Alexis de Tocqueville (1962: 75-76)Why is it that we did not complete our cultural journey, and how is it that we have ended up today in the very worst of times? What is it that made our predecessor pore over their desks, writing down and recording the marvels of mathematics and sciences and searching out the skies with the stars and constellations in order to discover their secrets, and driven by the love of knowledge, to study medicine and to devise medicaments even from the stomachs of bees […] Andalus became a lost place, then Palestine became Andalus.Mahmud Darwish (2004)

scholarly journals THE PROBLEM OF NAVAL WEAPONS’ LIMITATION IN FOREIGN POLICY OF THE USA IN THE EARLY 20-IES OF XX CENTURY

2019 ◽  
pp. 64-75
Author(s):  
Goncharenko A.V.
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
White House ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa

The article researches the position of the United States on the issue of naval arms restriction in the early 20-ies of the XX century. There are outlined causes, the course and the consequences of the intensification of Washington’s naval activity during the investigated period. It is explored the process of formation and implementation of the US initiatives to limit naval weapons before and during the Washington Peace Conference of 1921–1922. The role of the USA in the settlement of foreign policy contradictions between the leading countries of the world in the early 20-ies of the XX century is analyzed. In the early 20’s of the XX century there have been some changes in the international relations system and the role of the USA in it. Despite the isolation stance taken by Washington, the White House continues its policy of «open doors» and «equal opportunities», promoting the elimination of unequal agreements between foreign countries with China, and attempts to influence the position of European countries and Japan in the naval contest issues and limitation of naval weapons. Taking full advantages, which were giving the United States’ the richest country and world creditor status, the US Department of State has stepped up its US impact in the Asia-Pacific region. The new Republican administration succeeded in offsetting the failures of the Paris Decisions of 1919–1920 and began to СУМСЬКА СТАРОВИНА 2019 №LIV 75 construct a new model of international relations in which the United States would occupy a leading position. The success of US diplomacy at the Washington Peace Conference of 1921– 1922 contributed to this. However, the conflict between the former allies within the Entente was only smoothed out and not settled. The latter has led to increasing US capital expansion into Europe due to the significant economic growth in the country. Despite the fact that the Republicans’ achievements in US foreign policy on local issues have been much more specific than trying to solve the problem of a new system of international relations globally, these achievements have been rather relative. Leading countries in the world were still making concessions to the White House on separate issues, but in principle they were not ready to accept the scheme of relations offered by the States. That is why American foreign policy achievements have been impermanent. Key words: the

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document