scholarly journals Think tanks estadunidenses e a China: a crítica homogênea na administração Trump (2017-2020) | U.S. think tanks and China: the homogeneous critics in the Trump administration (2017-2020)

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. e58701
Author(s):  
Rúbia Marcussi Pontes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
China Policy ◽  
Heritage Foundation ◽  
Trump Administration

O artigo analisa a produção de think tanks (TTs) dos Estados Unidos (EUA), a dizer, o Council on Foreign Relations, The Asia Society e The Heritage Foundation, sobre a China e identifica interfaces com a política dos EUA para tal Estado sob o governo de Donald Trump (2017-2020). A pesquisa é feita a partir da análise de conteúdo de relatórios, com base em indicadores selecionados, e aponta para a homogeneidade de suas críticas e recomendações. Conclui-se que predomina o alinhamento entre os TTs e a administração Trump, em um contexto de consenso bipartidário sobre a adoção de medidas mais duras em relação à China.Palavras-chave: Estados Unidos; China; Think Tanks.ABSTRACTThe article analyses U.S.-based think tanks’ (TTs) production (Council on Foreign Relations, The Asia Society and The Heritage Foundation) about China and identifies similarities in it with U.S. China policy in Donald Trump’s administration (2017-2020). The research was conducted through content analysis of the TTs’ reports and articles, with guiding indexes, and highlights their homogeneous critics and recommendations. The article also points to the alignment between the selected TTs and the Trump administration in a broader scenario of bipartisan support regarding the adoption of tougher measures in U.S. China policy.Keywords: United States; China; Think Tanks. Recebido em: 27 mar. 2021 | Aceito em: 07 jul. 2021.

Trump Reverses Certain Steps Toward Normalizing Relations with Cuba

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 1027-1035
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Regime ◽  
Military Government ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
White House ◽  
Senior Official ◽  
Roll Back ◽  
Trump Administration

In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced a plan to roll back various steps taken by his predecessor toward normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba. A senior official for the administration announced the plan in a White House press briefing:The President vowed to reverse the Obama administration policies toward Cuba that have enriched the Cuban military regime and increased the repression on the island. It is a promise that President Trump made, and it's a promise that President Trump is keeping.With this is a readjustment of the United States policy towards Cuba. And you will see that, going forward, the new policy under the Trump administration, will empower the Cuban people. To reiterate, the new policy going forward does not target the Cuban people, but it does target the repressive members of the Cuban military government.

The U.S. Foreign Policy under Trump Administration to Recognize Jerusalem as the State Capital of Israel

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-141
Author(s):  
Hasbi Aswar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Republican Party ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Capital City ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Us ◽  
State Capital ◽  
Trump Administration

A speech from the President of United States, Donald Trump, who explicitly state Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel triggering debate that threatens harmonization of the Middle East. Disagreement appear from South East Asia state up to European state regarding to Trump’s statement, which turn into United States foreign policy. Trump’s statement described as the main reason of increasing tension Palestinian – Israel conflict. This essay argues that The US policy toward Jerusalem was merely influenced by domestic politics in the sense that to satisfy Trump`s main voters of the Republican Party that is Evangelical Christian base.

US firms will feel pressure in China, trade war or not

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Integrated Circuits ◽  
The United States ◽  
Xi Jinping ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Trade Surplus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
China Trade ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Trump Administration

Subject China's options for retaliating against US firms during trade tensions. Significance US President Donald Trump tweeted yesterday that he is working with China's President Xi Jinping to get China's telecoms giant, ZTE, "back in business, fast" -- even though it was penal US sanctions that forced the company to announce last week that it was stopping operations. The Trump administration is divided on whether its objective in threatening imports tariffs on Chinese goods worth 50 billion dollars, effective May 22, is to strike a deal to cut China's trade surplus with the United States or to change China's industrial practices. Impacts Compliance costs will rise even if trade tensions subside. Investors in industries that China sees as strategic (eg, semiconductors and integrated circuits) may face unwritten screening rules. Investors in automobile, aircraft and shipping manufacturing and finance may find new opportunities to enter the market.

scholarly journals The United States’ Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy: An Analysis of Structural Violence

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Karina Utami Dewi ◽  
Desti Putri Cahyani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Undocumented Immigrants ◽  
Structural Violence ◽  
Zero Tolerance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
International Attention ◽  
Unsafe Condition ◽  
Trump Administration

Kebijakan imigrasi Zero Tolerance merupakan salah satu bentuk kebijakan yang diformulasikan oleh pemerintahan Donald Trump dengan tujuan untuk mengurangi jumlah imigran tanpa dokumen yang memasuki wilayah Amerika Serikat. Kebijakan imigrasi ini menjadi isu yang mendapat sorotan dari dunia internasional karena sarat dengan pelanggaran hak-hak asasi manusia, dan memosisikan imigran tanpa dokumen serta anak-anak dalam keadaan yang rentan. Tulisan ini mengelaborasi bahwa kebijakan ini mengindikasikan kekerasan struktural pada penerapannya, dengan menggunakan konsep Kekerasan Struktural yang ditulis oleh Johan Galtung, dan mencoba membuktikan terjadinya kekerasan struktural serta alasan mengapa kebijakan ini dilakukan oleh Amerika Serikat. Terdapat tiga argumen utama pada tulisan ini; pertama, kekerasan struktural terbukti telah dilakukan oleh Amerika Serikat dapat dilihat melalui subjek, objek, serta tindakan dalam konsep Kekerasan Struktural. Kedua, terdapat faktor pendorong yang sifatnya sengaja dan tidak sengaja dalam melakukan kebijakan yang mengakibatkan kekerasan struktural. Yang ketiga, Amerika Serikat menjalankan kebijakan ini dengan menggunakan pendekatan yang menekankan pada reward dan punishment. Kata-kata kunci: imigrasi, kekerasan struktural, Amerika Serikat  Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy is one form of policy formulated by the Donald Trump administration to reduce undocumented immigrants entering the United States. This immigration policy has become an issue of international attention because it is full of human rights violations, and places the undocumented immigrants and children in an unsafe condition. This paper describes that the policy mentioned above indicates structural violence in its implementation, employs the concept of Structural Violence written by Johan Galtung, and tries to prove the occurrence of structural violence and the reasons why this policy was carried out by the United States. There are three main arguments in this paper; first, there is indeed structural violence that has been committed by the United States as observed in the object, subject, and actions in the concept of Structural Violence. Second, there are intended and unintended motivations in implementing this policy, which encouraged structural violence. Third, The United States carries out this policy by using an approach that emphasizes reward and punishment. Keywords: immigration, structural violence, United States

Trump administration may disengage from South Sudan

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Sudan ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Trump Administration

Significance Though the United States and South Sudan have a long history, the surprise election of Donald Trump could shift Washington’s posture towards Juba. The deepening crisis there has soured a a once-close relationship. Impacts US Africa policy may be determined in large part by Trump’s personnel picks for senior Africa posts. As observers warn of possible genocide, a US government in transition will find itself ill-prepared to respond. The proposed 4,000-strong Regional Protection Force may find less support from the new administration. US humanitarian funding levels should remain high despite potential policy changes.

Uncertain Times: The Reconstruction of China–US Relationship

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (04) ◽  
pp. 19-27
Author(s):  
Weixing CHEN
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
The Rise Of China ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Trump Administration

The rise of China has shaken, to some extent, the pillars sustaining the US dominance in the world. Facing structural challenges from China, the United States has responded on three levels: political, strategic and policy. The Donald Trump administration has adopted a hard-line approach while attempting to engage China at the structural level. The China–US relationship is entering uncertain times, and the reconstruction of the relationship could take a decade.

A Transatlantic Network

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Stedman Jones
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
The United States ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Political Organization ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Heritage Foundation ◽  
Cato Institute ◽  
Set Up

This chapter explores how a transatlantic network of sympathetic businessmen and fundraisers, journalists and politicians, policy experts and academics grew and spread neoliberal ideas between the 1940s and the 1970s. These individuals were successful at promoting ideas through a new type of political organization, the think tank. The first wave of neoliberal think tanks were set up in the 1940s and 1950s and included the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education in the United States, and the Institute of Economic Affairs in Great Britain. A second wave of neoliberal think tanks were established in the 1970s, including the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute in Great Britain, and the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute in the United States.

The U.S. Assistance to the MENA Arab Countries under the Trump Administration: The Logic of a Diff erentiated Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 131-170
Author(s):  
V. I. Bartenev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Arab Countries ◽  
The Other ◽  
Unexpected Result ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Mena Region ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

This paper identifi es and explains key changes in the U.S. aid policies towards Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) under Donald Trump. It seeks to validate two widespread arguments — the one about the current administration’s revision of pivotal principles of providing foreign assistance, and the other one — about an accelerated disengagement of the United States from the MENA region since 2017. The paper consists of four sections. The fi rst section explores the transformation of the U.S. strategic thinking and regional context under the Trump administration and then posits fi ve hypotheses about possible changes in the volume and composition of the U.S. assistance to the MENA region (in comparison with the fi nal two years of the Obama administration), as well as the diff erences in the executive branch and the Congress’s positions. The second section explains particularities of the statistical data and the methods of its exploration, the third section presents the results of hypothesis testing using aggregated data on aid fl ows to the region, and the fi nal section explains these results, sometimes unexpected, using the data disaggregated by country. Three of fi ve hypotheses proved wrong based on the aggregate data. First, the Trump administration did not cut assistance to the MENA more substantially than to other regions of the globe. Second, it did not ringfence aid accounts which helped yield direct dividends to the U.S. businesses. Third, the Republican Congress was clearly less willing to support the executive’s aid chocies under a new Republican President than during the last years of a Democrat Barack Obama’s second term. Only two hypotheses proved correct — one about a prioritization of security and military assistance under Donald Trump and the other one — about disproportionate cuts of democracy promotion assistance. Such an unexpected result calls for refi ning both aforementioned arguments and taking into account the dissimilarities in the dynamics of assistance to diff erent countries. The United States tends to practice a diff erentiated approach in dealing with two largest Arab aid recipients (Egypt and Jordan) and with other Arab countries. The assistance to Cairo and Amman is ringfenced and protected, while aid to other recipients, including security assistance and FMF grants, is prone to quite drastic cuts. This diff erentiation is explained by the fact that cooperation with Egypt and Jordan rests not only on more solid strategic foundations but also on a strong support within the United States — both from the defense contractors interested in large export contracts and from an infl uential pro-Israel lobby. The U.S. will not abandon this highly diff erentiated approach after the 2020 elections but the structure of assistance to the MENA region might undergo quite a dramatic transformation.

Trump Administration Maintains Nuclear Deal with Iran, Despite Persistent Skepticism

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 776-781
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immediate Release ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The World ◽  
Trump Administration

Iran, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, and the European Union agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to limit the scope and content of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from various nuclear-related sanctions imposed by the other signatories. Throughout his campaign, President Donald Trump denounced the JCPOA. He said that, if elected, he would “renegotiate with Iran—right after … enabl[ing] the immediate release of our American prisoners and ask[ing] Congress to impose new sanctions that stop Iran from having the ability to sponsor terrorism around the world.” So far, however, the Trump administration has kept the agreement in place. The United States has continued to acknowledge Iran's compliance with the terms of the JCPOA and has waived various sanctions against Iran in compliance with its own obligations thereunder. Iran, by contrast, has charged the United States with failing to live up to its own JCPOA commitments.

scholarly journals American media about the "Abraham Agreements" and the role of the Trump administration in their conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Svetlana Margelova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
American Media ◽  
Trump Administration

The article examines the coverage in the American media of issues related to the signing of agreements, called the "Abraham Agreement", on mutual recognition and normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, as well as between Israel and Bahrain through the mediation of the United States. The main focus is on comparing the positions of liberal and conservative publications regarding the assessment, motives and consequences of signing agreements, as well as the role of Donald Trump and his administration. Based on the material considered, it is concluded that conservative publications are more consolidated and complementary in their attitude to the "Abraham Agreements", while in liberal publications the spread of opinions is sometimes diametrically opposed, with a noticeable bias towards a skeptical point of view.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document