Surges and Their Constraints

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Mayhew
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
White House ◽  
Industrial Economy ◽  
Multilateral Agreements

This chapter turns to three American “impulses” of post-Civil War times: building an industrial economy, taming the corporations, and the rise to world hegemony. In general, Congress, when it has differed with the presidency on foreign policy, has leaned toward inaction, often accompanied by cacophonous talk. Congress has often resisted or footdragged on White House aims for expansions, invasions, intrusions, annexations, and commitments abroad. “Insularity” is a decent tagline for this bent—it entails constraint on action. This idea applies to participation in multilateral agreements and commitments, not just to unilateral U.S. moves abroad.

Major Themes in Mozambigan Foreign Relations, 1975–1977

1978 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
William Minter
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Trade Fair ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
Washington Post ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China

Mozambique “switched from a pro-Chinese to a pro-Soviet stance during the Angolan civil war,” writes a commentator in the influential U.S. quarterly Foreign Policy of Fall 1977. “Mozambique said to Cool on Soviets, Turn West,” headlines a Washington Post dispatch of December 15, 1977. The Economist’s Foreign Report claims in its advertising to have been the first to describe the ideological infighting within FRELIMO and the swing to Russia. The commentators seemed to have missed Mozambique’s 1977 trade fair in September, at which the People’s Republic of China won first prize for an exhibit corresponding to Mozambique’s needs, but if they had been there one might well have seen headlines proclaiming Mozambique’s shift back to China.

The Clinton Administration and Africa: White House Involvement and the Foreign Affairs Bureaucracies

1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
John F. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Clinton Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
White House ◽  
Continuity And Change ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The U.S

Both continuity and change capture the evolving role of the Clinton White House in the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy toward Africa. Elements of continuity are reflected in a familiar pattern of relationships between the White House and the principal foreign policy bureaucracies, most notably the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and more recently the U.S. Department of Commerce. As cogently argued in Peter J. Schraeder’s analysis of U.S. foreign policy toward Africa during the Cold War era, the White House has tended to take charge of U.S. African policies only in those relatively rare situations perceived as crises by the president and his closest advisors. In other, more routine situations—the hallmark of the myriad of U.S. African relations—the main foreign policy bureaucracies have been at the forefront of policy formulation, and “bureaucratic dominance” of the policymaking process has prevailed. Much the same pattern is visible in the Clinton administration, with the exception of President Clinton’s trip to Africa in 1998. Until that time, events in Somalia in 1993 served as the only true African crisis of the administration that was capable of focusing the ongoing attention of President Clinton and his closest advisors. Given that the United States is now disengaged from most African crises, Africa has remained a “backwater” for the White House and the wider foreign policymaking establishment.

scholarly journals Du projet stratégique sino-soviétique au projet stratégique sino-américain : la Nouvelle Chine en quête d’une stratégie d’accès à l’influence planétaire

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-795
Author(s):  
Claude Cadart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chinese Foreign Policy ◽  
Cultural Dimension ◽  
Deng Xiaoping ◽  
White House ◽  
Strategic Project ◽  
Near Future

« From the Sino-Soviet strategic project to the Sino-American strategic project » is a purposely schematic interpretative essay on the evolution of Chinese foreign policy from 1949 to 1979 with emphasis on, the latter phase of that evolution, that of the 1969—1979 period, and more particularly on the last year of that decade, 1979. The project, both defensive and offensive, of American and Chinese co-leadership of the planet that Mao had undertaken to carry out in 1971-1972 with the encouragement of Nixon had to be more or less put aside from 1973 to 1978 because of the seriousness of the domestic crises that were successively shaking both China and the United States during those years. In 1978—79, it was able to be reactivated by Deng Xiaoping who sought, with the benediction of the White House, to add an economic and a cultural dimension to Us diplomatic and strategic dimension. It is unlikely however in the near future that the United States will consider China as other than an auxiliary aspect of the fundamental game of their relations with the most powerful of their adversary-partners, the U.S.S.R. As in the case of the Sino-Soviet strategic project that China promoted from 1949 to 1959, the Sino-American strategic project that China has sought to « sell » the United States since 1969 has not, therefore, much chance of success.

scholarly journals The Ethics of Arming Rebels

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Policy Option

Despite the popularity of arming rebels as a foreign policy option, there is very little, if any, detailed engagement with the ethical issues surrounding the practice. There is a growing literature on the ethical issues surrounding civil wars and, more specifically, the conditions for engaging in just rebellion; but the focus of this literature is largely on the question of the justifiability of the rebels themselves in engaging in civil war and their conduct when doing so, rather than the permissibility of the arming of rebels by other agents. It is precisely this issue that I want to address here. Overall, I argue that the process should be generally eschewed. More specifically, this article seeks to establish that arming rebels is generally impermissible and only exceptionally morally permissible (even, as I will argue, when rebels are engaged in unjust wars). The former, far more restrictive claim will be established in the first part of the article. The latter, more permissive claim will be established in the second part of the article.

“The Fittest Subject for A King's Quarrel”: An Essay on the Militia Controversy 1641-1642

1971 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lois G. Schwoerer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Military Power ◽  
Fundamental Issue ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
King Charles I

The struggle between King and Parliament in 1641-42 for command of the militia was to King Charles I “the Fittest Subject for a King's Quarrel.” As the King himself and a group of pamphleteers, preachers and members of Parliament realized, the controversy was not just a contest for control of military power. The fundamental issue was a change in England's government, a shift in sovereignty from King or King-in-Parliament to Parliament alone. As Charles explained, “Kingly Power is but a shadow” without command of the militia. His contemporaries, representing various political allegiances, also testified to the significance of the contest over the militia. They described it as the “avowed foundation” of the Civil War, “the greatest concernment” ever faced by the House of Commons, and the “great quarrel” between the King and his critics. To some men it was this dispute over military authority and the implications for government which were inherent in it, rather than disagreements about religion, taxes or foreign policy, that made civil war unavoidable.Concern about military authority first erupted in the fall of 1641 in response to a series of events – rumors of plots involving the King, the presence in London of disbanded soldiers who had returned from the war with Scotland, the “Incident” in Scotland, and above all the rebellion in Ireland which required the levying of an army to subdue those rebels.

“Old Civilized Asian States”: the Perception of Eurasian Space by Russian Public Figures and Publicists at the End of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Centuries

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 267-276
Author(s):  
Alexander Yu. Polunov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
The State ◽  
Russian Foreign Policy ◽  
Christian Communities ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Public Leaders

The article analyzes the issue of conceptualization by Russian public leaders and publicists of the causes and goals of the turn of Russian foreign policy to the East at the end of the 19th century. In those years there took shape the idea of specific eastern mission of Russia that influenced later the configuring of Eurasian ideology. At the same time the ideological constructions of the publicists at the end of the 19th century were rather peculiar. In contrast to the Eurasians those authors paid special attention to the “old civilized states in Asia”, like Persia and China. The necessity to support the Celestial Empire and the Christian communities in Persia was determined, according to those publicists, by Russia’s duty to protect the weak. Besides, China was viewed as the state with established autocracy concept that was very important for Russia. At the beginning of the 20th century the ideas of the “orientalists” and other publicists contemplating Russia’s special mission in Asia, lost their former influence. Their distant echo can be found in the program of the prominent White movement leader baron R.F. Ungern, who brought forward the idea of establishing a Pan-Asian monarchy relying on China during Civil War.

U.S. Guns Kill U.S. Nuns

2020 ◽  
pp. 101-130
Author(s):  
Theresa Keeley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central America ◽  
Central American ◽  
White House ◽  
Protest Movement ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Church ◽  
The U.S

This chapter examines the murders of the churchwomen and how Reagan officials' critiques, which revealed that intra-Catholic conflict had become an integral part of United States–Central America policy with Reagan's ascension to the White House. It looks at remarks that bolster the Salvadoran junta's reputation or diminish the murders' impact on the protest movement against U.S. policy. It also discusses that the murdered churchwomen symbolized the church's championing of the poor and a U.S. foreign policy that was morally corrupt and politically unsound for training and arming their killers. The chapter cites that two murdered Maryknollers were members of a Catholic order and represented a dangerous trajectory for U.S. foreign policy and the church. It elaborates how the U.S. government aligned with conservative U.S. and Central American Catholics and amplified their perspective.

1. Introduction: US foreign policy—past, present, and future

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cox ◽  
Doug Stokes
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
White House ◽  
Pressure Groups ◽  
East Russia ◽  
Key Issues

This work examines how domestic politics and culture shape US foreign policy, with particular emphasis on the role of institutions and processes. It considers the ways in which pressure groups and elites determine influence what the United States does abroad, the importance of regional shifts and media and their impact on the making of US foreign policy, and US relations with Europe, the Middle East, Russia, the Asia-Pacific region, Latin America, and Africa. The text also discusses key issues relevant to American foreign policy, such as global terrorism, the global environment, gender, and religion. It argues that whoever resides in the White House will continue to give the military a central role in the conduct of US foreign policy, and that whoever ‘runs’ American foreign policy will still have to deal with the same challenges both at home and abroad.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document