Constraints and Adjustments in the US–Yemeni Relations

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-337
Author(s):  
Jacob Abadi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Democratic Parties

This article analyzes the course of US–Yemeni relations from the 1940s to the present and aims to explain the reasons for the twists and turns in bilateral relations. It argues that the US government never developed a unique “Yemen policy” and that its attitude toward that country was determined largely by its ties with Saudi Arabia. Yemen began to loom large in US foreign policy in the early 1960s when Egyptian President Gamal Abd al-Nasser intervened on behalf of the Republicans who staged a coup against the Royal imamate regime, which relied on Saudi support. The article shows that President John Kennedy looked favorably on the new Republican regime in Yemen despite the robust relations that existed between the United Statesand Saudi Arabia. In addition, it argues that despite the war in Yemen, which lasted from 1962 to 1970 and caused instability in this region, this country did not loom large in US foreign policy. This was largely due to the British presence in south Yemen and especially in the port of Aden, which lasted until 1967. The article shows how the British withdrawal from Aden increased Yemen’s value in the eyes of US policymakers, but even then, no effort was made to fashion a unique policy toward this country. In addition, the article demonstrates how Washington’s attitude changed in 1969 when the country was divided into North Yemen, which tended to regard the Soviet Union as its protector and South Yemen, which continued to rely on US aid. And lastly, the article traces US–Yemeni relations from 1990, when the country reunited, until the present. It demonstrates how the bilateral relations were affected by the superpowers’ rivalry during the Cold War, the fight against terrorism, and disagreement between the Republican and the Democratic parties in the United States.

US-Cuban Relations in the 1980s: Issues and Policies

1985 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge I. Domínguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Policy Instruments ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

Should the United States go to war with Cuba? If not, what should be the policy of the US government toward Cuba? What should be Cuban policies toward the United States and the Soviet Union? Should Cuba increase or decrease its worldwide commitments and should it emphasize formal or informal foreign policy instruments? These have been the central questions affecting US-Cuban relations during the past quarter century. This essay endeavors to address some of the aspects they raise for US-Cuban relations for the remainder of the decade.

14. US foreign policy in Russia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rutland
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Former Soviet Union ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The North ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Vladimir Putin

This chapter examines US foreign policy in Russia. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 raised a number of questions that have profound implications for American foreign policy; for example, whether the Russian Federation, which inherited half the population and 70 per cent of the territory of the former Soviet Union, would become a friend and partner of the United States, a full and equal member of the community of democratic nations, or whether it would return to a hostile, expansionary communist or nationalist power. The chapter considers US–Russia relations at various times under Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Dmitry Medvedev, and Donald Trump. It also discusses a host of issues affecting the US–Russia relations, including the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the crisis in Kosovo and Ukraine, and the civil war in Syria.

The US South Caucasian Policy under Donald Trump

2018 ◽  
pp. 55-59
Author(s):  
Khatuna Chapichadze
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Active Engagement ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Us South ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us

After providing a brief overview of the US policy in the South Caucasus from the beginning of the 90s of the 20th century as there have emerged three new countries in the region after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the article mainly focuses on relatively less active engagement from the side of the United States into the affairs of the South Caucasus since the presidency of Barack Obama maintained if not untypically deepened even more under Donald Trump currently as well. These trends are explained through the prism of the general standpoints of the latest American administrations promoting the idea of less or non-interference of the superpower in other countries’, regions’ or continents’ notably domestic matters. There are discussed major implications of such, i.e. the less active US foreign policy observed among others, also in the South Caucasus lately, although in the case of this region clearly primarily with less desirable effects as it appears in fact, taking into account on the other hand however quite diverse needs and interests of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. The article critically analyses the consequences the US recent withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, as well as its re-imposition of economic sanctions against Iran might have for the South Caucasian countries, addresses the factor of latest uncertainty over the NATO member Turkey, covers the Russian problem, and raises one of the crucial issues whether the current US President Donald Trump has more actual decisive power than the Congress, also in terms of foreign policy implementation, or not.

The Nuclear Spies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vince Houghton
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Atomic Bomb ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Intelligence ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

The subject of this book is the US atomic intelligence effort against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the period 1942-1949. Both of these intelligence efforts operated within the framework of an entirely new field of intelligence: scientific intelligence. Because of the atomic bomb, for the first time in history a nation’s scientific resources became a key consideration in assessing a potential national security threat. In September 1949, US intelligence was shocked to discover that the Soviet Union had detonated its first atomic bomb. Coming just four years after the United States had become the world’s first nuclear power, the Soviet atomic bomb was produced in half the time American intelligence had predicted. Compounding the confusion was the fact that American intelligence had engaged in an effort against Nazi Germany that had correctly assessed the status of the German atomic bomb program. This book explores the following: Considering how successfully the US conducted the atomic intelligence effort against the Germans in the Second World War, why was the US Government unable to create an effective atomic intelligence apparatus to monitor Soviet scientific and nuclear capabilities?

The Accidental Political Advantages of a Nonpolitical Book Program

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria M. Grieve
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Cultural Diplomacy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Years ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Written Word ◽  
The Cold War

In the early years of the Cold War, the US government devoted substantial energy and funds to using books as weapons against the Soviet Union. Books and the principles they represented were to counter Soviet accusations of American materialism and spread American ideals around the globe. Founded in 1952, Franklin Books Program, Inc. was a gray propaganda program that operated at the nexus of US public–private cultural diplomacy efforts. USIA bureaucrats believed Franklin successfully carried out diplomatic objectives by highlighting the positive aspects of American culture and those who ran Franklin emphasized the “nonpolitical” aspects of cultural diplomacy, many of which directly targeted children. Franklin’s textbooks and juvenile science books cultivated a literate population friendly to the United States, reaching out to foreign young people through books, which like art, seemed to transcend the written word and represent abstract ideals of freedom and democracy.

Yugoslavia’s Foreign Policy in Balkan Perspective: Tracking between the Superpowers and Non-Alignment

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 97-113
Author(s):  
John R. Lampe
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
European Trade ◽  
Special Relationships ◽  
Soviet Invasion ◽  
Foreign Ministry

From 1960 forward, Yugoslavia based its independent foreign policy on three “special relationships”, balancing its accommodation with the Soviet Union by close relations with the United States and the new Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Paying special attention to the roles of Yugoslavia’s Foreign Ministry and the US State Department as well as President Tito, this article addresses three crucial periods in which the intersection of Yugoslavia’s relations with the US, the USSR and the NAM prompted a decisive turn in its foreign policy. In 1961–63, Tito’s support for the NAM damaged its US relations to Soviet benefit. But in 1967–71, NAM indifference to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia turned Tito back toward the US, as advocated by his Foreign Ministry. And in 1976-79, Soviet and Bulgarian efforts to coopt the NAM through Cuba’s Presidency prompted a successful rebuff led by Yugoslavia and appreciated in Washington. After 1979, however, Belgrade’s post Tito reliance on economic relations with the NAM members had unintended and damaging domestic consequences, obstructing the Slovenian and Croatian commitment to West European trade while also dividing Bosnian Muslims from Bosnian Serbs.

scholarly journals HENRY A. KISSINGER’S ARTICLE ON TERRORISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Mokhamad Toha Rudin
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
World Order ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Other World

The aim of this study is to conduct a critical analysis of Kissinger’s article “America’s Assignment” on Newsweek 2004, and to elaborate US foreign policy toward Islam world and Terrorism after the end if the Cold War, this article also tries to find the ideology or tradition of American foreign policy reflected in Kissinger’s article “America’s Assignment”, and how is Realism ideology reflected in the article. The study employs library research in which the data gathered from books, journals, magazines, and internet. The study also employs Van Dijk’s critical linguistic model for the critical analysis of Kissinger’s “America’s Assignment”.The result of the study shows that Kissinger’s “America’s Assignment” reflects both "multilateralistrealist” and “realist-idealist” perspectives for the US foreign policy that the US government should employ. He argues that no single superpower in the world could manage the world order alone without the participants of other world countries. He opposes W. Bush’s unilateral foreign policy toward Iraq though he agrees to “the move toward empire (terrorist) must be halted immediately”. He also argues that bringing democracy into the world, especially Iraq and Muslim worlds, is necessary in order to set up the new world order. The study also shows that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a new ideological and cultural conflict between Islam, especially the militant fundamentalist in the fringe of Islam, against the US (Western) globalization of democratization. The new conflict is also generated by the Western phobia toward Islam that can be traced back to the mid-century when the War of Crusade between Islam and Christianity happened.Keywords: US foreign policy, Realist, Idealist, Multilateralist, Unilateralist

scholarly journals US Policy towards Ukraine under Donald Trump’s Administration: Problematic Issues and Prospects

2020 ◽  
pp. 658-667
Author(s):  
Olha Kravchenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trump Administration

The article describes and analyses the policy of the Trump administration towards Ukraine. Traditionally, the election of a new US President has some impact on the Washington’s position on Ukrainian issues, and the end of the presidential tenure serves as a reason to take stock of the results. Donald Trump’s presidency has not been marked by profound changes in the US foreign policy towards Ukraine, as it was inertially in line, for the most part, with the previous years. The American political establishment primarily views Ukraine through the prism of the security paradigm as a bulwark of deterring its global opponents, particularly Russia. Thus, the article deals with the challenges and prospects of the modern US policy towards Ukraine. The priorities of the US foreign policy towards Ukraine traditionally consist of the issues enshrined in the 2008 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. The article focuses on defence, security, and energy cooperation. In this regard, the United States remains the major guarantor of the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. In deterring the Russian aggression, the Trump administration generally follows the approach of the imposition of economic sanctions, launched during the presidency of Barack Obama. It is important to stress that the United States focuses not only on the problem of the armed conflict in Donbas but also on the attempted illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. At the same time, the focus on security issues has its negative repercussions, as it leads to certain limitations in bilateral relations, as evidenced by the lack of large-scale joint projects and weak trade and economic cooperation that impacts Ukraine’s position in the US foreign policy priorities. In the meantime, regardless of the name of the future US President, Washington’s support for Ukraine will be maintained. The close involvement of the United States in the negotiation process for the settlement of the conflict in Donbas and de-occupation of Crimea would significantly influence the course of events, but it is difficult to predict whether this prospect will become a reality. Keywords: US foreign policy towards Ukraine, Trump administration, strategic partnership, U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations, process of impeachment.

scholarly journals US Leadership and the International Refugee Regime

Refuge ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan F. Martin ◽  
Elizabeth Ferris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Strong Link ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
International Refugee Regime

This article examines the role of the United States in the international refugee regime. It argues that the United States generally leads in assistance and protection of refugees and displaced persons when three conditions are present: a strong link to US foreign policy; clear and highly visible humanitarian needs and important domestic constituencies in support of action; and strong congressional support. The United States manifests its leadership through its financial contributions, as the largest donor to the array of international organizations with responsibilities in this area; resettlement of the refugees; and the use of the convening power of the US government. Nevertheless, there are reasons to be cautious about US leadership. While it is unlikely that the United States will soon lose its status as principal donor and principal strategist on tackling displacement, its ability to generate new resettlement offers is less clear, as is its ability to increase its own resettlement levels. The asylum system still has significant gaps, making it difficult for the United States to lead by example.

US-Saudi Relations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor McFarland
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Development Program ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Oil Embargo ◽  
The Persian Gulf

The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has shaped the history of both countries. Soon after the Saudi kingdom was founded in 1932, American geologists discovered enormous oil reserves near the Persian Gulf. Oil-driven development transformed Saudi society. Many Americans came to work in Saudi Arabia, while thousands of Saudis studied and traveled in the United States. During the mid-20th century, the American-owned oil company Aramco and the US government worked to strengthen the Saudi regime and empower conservative forces in the kingdom—not only to protect American oil interests, but also to suppress nationalist and leftist movements in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. The partnership was complicated by disagreement over Israel, triggering an Arab oil embargo against the United States in 1973–1974. During the 1970s, Saudi Arabia became the world’s largest oil exporter, nationalized Aramco, and benefited from surging oil prices. In partnership with the United States, it used its new wealth at home to launch a huge economic development program, and abroad to subsidize political allies like the Afghan mujahideen. The United States led a massive military operation to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1990–1991, protecting the Saudi regime but angering Saudis who opposed their government’s close relationship with the United States. One result was the rise of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network and the 9/11 attacks, carried out by a largely Saudi group of hijackers. Despite public opposition on both sides, after 2001 the United States and Saudi Arabia continued their commercial relationship and their political partnership, originally directed against the Soviet Union and Nasser’s Egypt, and later increasingly aimed at Iran.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document