scholarly journals AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES TOWARDS GERMANY

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 41-49
Author(s):  
Pavel Sharikov ◽  

The article addresses the priorities of US relations with Germany. The victory of Joseph Biden and Democratic Party on the elections of 2020 signified quite radical twist in US foreign policy. The election slogan «America is back» which won the White House for the Democratic Party and Congress, means restoration of transatlantic relationship, damaged by the previous administration. Germany has a special place in this process. Elections in Germany in 2021 resulted in a victory of a Social Democratic Party. Decision making in Washington on Relations with Germany are influenced by many factors, including those related to domestic policies and international relations. Domestically there have appeared contradictions between Democratic and Republican parties on a number of priority issues on the bilateral agenda. In particular, the main differences were related to the Nord Stream 2 project. The situation in Afghanistan remains an urgent problem for both sides. It is noteworthy that following the results of the last elections in the United States, the German Caucus again became active in Congress, including both democratic and republican politicians. It is clear that Biden’s administration pursues the developing of economic ties with Germany.

Author(s):  
Michael Cox ◽  
Doug Stokes

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Wojczewski

Abstract Employing a discursive understanding of populism and combing it with insights of poststructuralist international relations theory and Lacanian psychoanalysis, this article examines the conceptual links between foreign policy and populist forms of identity construction, as well as the ideological force that populism can unfold in the realm of foreign policy. It conceptualizes populism and foreign policy as distinct discourses that constitute collective identities by relating Self and Other. Identifying different modes of Othering, the article illustrates its arguments with a case study on the United States under Donald Trump and shows how the Trumpian discourse has used foreign policy as a platform for the (re)production of a populist-nationalist electoral coalition. Unlike common conceptions of populism as an ideology that misrepresents reality, the article argues that the discourse develops its ideological appeal by obscuring the discursive construction of social reality and thereby promising to satisfy the subject's desire for a complete and secure identity.


Author(s):  
Dan Reiter

International actors sometimes force targeted states to change their governments, a process known as Foreign-Imposed Regime Change (FIRC). This foreign policy tool serves as a surprisingly active locus for several theoretical debates in international relations and comparative politics. On the international relations side, evaluation of FIRC as a policy tool has implications for the following debates: whether foreign policy decisions are affected by individual leaders or are determined by structural conditions; whether democracies are more peaceful in their relations with other states; how belligerents choose their war aims; what factors make for successful military occupation; what motivates states to go on ideological crusades; whether international actors can successfully install democracy in postconflict settings; determinants of international trade; and others. On the comparative politics side, FIRC speaks to what may be the two most important questions in all of comparative politics: what factors help a state maintain internal order, and what factors help a state make the transition to democracy? FIRC also plays an absolutely central role in foreign policy debates, especially for the United States. FIRC is arguably responsible for both the greatest success in the history of American foreign policy, the post-1945 pacification of Germany and Japan, and one of the greatest disasters in U.S. foreign policy history, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its catastrophic aftermath. Further, FIRC has played a ubiquitous role in American foreign policy since America’s emergence as a great power, as the United States has frequently used both overt and covert means to impose regime change in other countries, especially in Latin America. FIRC has also been a tool used by other major powers, especially the Soviet Union after 1945 in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Into the second decade of the 21st century FIRC remains a controversial foreign policy tool, as some debate the wisdom of pursuing FIRC in Libya in 2011, and others consider the possibility of pursuing FIRC in countries such as Syria. FIRC can be discussed as a theoretical phenomenon and as the subject of empirical research, focusing on its nature, causes, and effects. The article contains five sections. The first section discusses the definition and frequency of FIRC. The second section describes the causes of FIRC, why actors sometimes seek to impose regime change on other states. The third section covers the international consequences of FIRC, especially whether FIRC reduces conflict between states. The fourth section addresses the domestic consequences of FIRC, especially whether FIRC is usually followed by stability and/or democracy. The final section concludes.


Author(s):  
V. V. Pavlov

Established in accordance with the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947, the U.S. National Security Council is the main advisory body to the President of the United States tasked with helping the head of state to make the right decisions on matters related to national security. NSC system has been constantly evolving for some 70 years, and the NSC staff became a separate 'ministry' of a kind, allowing presidential administrations to focus ever-increasing control over American foreign policy in the White House. That is why serious attention is devoted to the National Security Council by American researches studying foreign policy decision-making. Here, a 'three-pronged consensus' exists: functioning and efficiency of the decision-making process is primarily a result of presidential actions; the President will make the best decision after becoming aware of the whole range of possible alternatives and assessing the consequences of each policy option; the position of the National Security Advisor, who is often one of the closest officials to the President and serves as a coordinator of the decision-making process, is considered to be one of the most notable in today's U.S. presidential administrations - and the most influential of those not being a subject to approval by the legislative branch of U.S. government. Any fundamental changes in the practice of U.S. foreign policy mechanism, as well as a decline of the White House influence on foreign policy are unlikely in the short term.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugenio Lilli

As of September 2011, the United States was involved, at different levels, in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. America has more than 700 military installations overseas, and its military expenses account for almost half of the world’s total . This substantial foreign engagement directly contradicts the United States’ self-professed isolationism in foreign policy. The concept of US isolationism dates back to the colonial days. Evidence for example can be found in Thomas Paine’s work, Common Sense (1776). It was then often reiterated by US leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, not long after America had gained its independence. Nowadays, characterizations of US foreign policy as isolationist are even further complicated if one moves beyond the field of military intervention and considers the thick web of economic, political, and cultural international relations existing among states. But what about past American foreign policy? Is it sensible to describe it as isolationist? This article analyzes US foreign policy rhetoric to suggest an answer to this inquiry.


1987 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-145
Author(s):  
Muhammad Arif

"The Ayatollah in the Cathedral," to borrow the term coined by ThomasKuhn, is a book that opens the gateway to paradigmatic tranformations in thetheory of international relations and the art of effectively handling foreignaffairs. Dr. Kennedy was one of the 50 hostages who went through the 444days' ordeal in Iran. He gives a detailed account of the events witnessed andexperienced by him as a hostage.The traumatic psychological impact of being a hostage in a revolution isnot easy for others fully to understand as outsiders; still the reader is able tosee that there were many occasions when Dr. Kennedy, as a hostage, thoughtthat his death was imminent.A mediocre author would easily have made his story of captivity a "bestseller' by capitalizing on hatred and by saying what the domestic opinionmakers in the United States want to hear. Instead, Dr. Kennedy defies thiscommon heritage of American scholarship on the Middle East. In this book,he emerges as a serious thinker with an outstanding ability to analyze the factswith scientific objectivity. What makes this book a remarkable multidisciplinarymasterpiece is Mr. Kennedy's professionally skillful and scientificanalysis of the process and factors that shape U. S. foreign policy at theState Department; the weaknesses of U. S. foreign policy in the Middle East;the causes of the U. S. failure to understand the Third World in general and theMuslim world in particular; and an alternative to U. S. foreign policy makingthat would ensure mutual respect and trust not only in the Middle East but inthe Third World in general, thereby restoring the effectiveness of the UnitedStates as a world leader.This book is unique and pivotal in the area of international relationsbecause Dr. Kennedy attempts to provide an alternative approach for U. S.foreign policy. This approach would enable policymakers to protect U. S. interestswhile at the same time winning mutual trust in the Muslim world; goalswhich, under present policy, seem to be mutually exclusive.The basic flaw in American foreign policy making, as pointed out by Dr.Kennedy, is that "our analyses of over-seas problems are too often based onabstraction - what the problem should be rather than what really is. We indulgeourselves in the luxury of seeing what we want to see and denying whatwe do not want to see." (p. 196). Elaborating on the dangers of this approachto foreign policy, he says: "The problem is not professional but cultural. And ...


2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (11) ◽  
pp. 24-30
Author(s):  
I. Shumilina

In the early months of Joe Biden’s administration in the White House, Middle East issues were not identified as a priority of its foreign policy. Individual steps in this direction, however, suggest that the administration will adhere to the principal lines of conduct for the United States towards American partners and allies (Israel, the Arab monarchies of the Gulf and others), as well as towards the main conflict nodes in the region (Syria, Libya, Yemen). At the same time, it is also obvious that its tactical emphasis has shifted in its approach to a number of the most important problems of the region – in particular, the Palestinian-Israeli standoff (namely, restoration of relations with the government of Mahmoud Abbas) and the situation around Iran (return to the renewed nuclear deal – JCPOA) and Turkey (overcoming the cooling of relations with Ankara). Apparently, we can talk about Biden’s revival of the Middle East policy pursued under Barack Obama’s administration. This process is largely due to the domestic political calculations of the Biden team and the Democratic Party as a whole. The author of the article tries to assess the influence of American immigrant’s communities from the Arab countries and Turkey on Joe Biden’s Middle East policy.


2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 57-86
Author(s):  
Henk Houweling ◽  
Mehdi Parvizi Amineh

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)


Author(s):  
Goncharenko A.V.

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