scholarly journals United States - China Relations: Prospects during Xi - Biden Tenure

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-287
Author(s):  
Srikanth Kondapalli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Strategic Stability ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
The Us ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Global Growth

Bilateral relations between China and the United States have become strategic in nature with implications to the rest of the world. Both have been engaging and competing on a number of issues in the recent times. While both seek security and stability so as to pursue their respective national interests, they differ on the way they pursue these. While engagement has been the dominant theme in the previous administrations, since late Trump, bilateral relations exhibited tensions on a number of issues including what China considered to be its core interests. Chinas agenda of keeping a low profile has been changed to accomplish something and it intends to occupy the centre stage in the long-term. The election of Joseph Biden as the President of the US coincided with the ongoing reassessments on the bilateral relations as well as coming to the fore of tensions on a number of fronts with China. The spread of COVID-19 pandemic, decline in global growth rates, disruptions in supply chains, and the growing uncertainty have only further exacerbated the US - China relations. Below is a review of the bilateral relations in the recent times by eliciting cooperative and competitive trends between China and the US. It is argued that the US - China relations are undergoing major shifts due to the tensions even as both are for ushering in strategic stability. Chinas perceptions at the leadership level, media and academic levels are outlined in brief to suggest that relations with the US are exhibiting tensions on a number of issues that pose challenges and opportunities for other countries.

scholarly journals The process of making Vietnam’s foreign policy with the United States based on David Easton’s model

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-323
Author(s):  
Nguyen Thu Trang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Strategic Partnerships ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Unites States

Since 2001, Vietnam has gradually built and implemented strategic and comprehensive partnerships with some of the World’s great powers. The behaviors of Vietnam have brought skepticism from international community. Besides, the differences in the nature of “Strategic Partnership”, “Comprehensive Partnership” and “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” in Vietnam's foreign policy are paid much attention to by scholars and scientific researchers. Because of the long-term strategic national interests, Vietnam-US relations strongly elevated from the normalization of bilateral relations to the level of comprehensive partners in 2013. Since 2017, the two countries have planned to upgrade their relations from comprehensive partnership level to strategic partnership level. In this context, the paper focuses on the application of systemic approaches in Vietnam's foreign policy making, with the content “The Process of Making Vietnam’s Foreign Policy with the United States based on David Easton’s Model”. The paper will analyze the process of making Vietnam’s foreign policy with Unites States based on David Easton’s Model. In addition, the paper also provide forecasts of the possibility of adjusting Vietnam's foreign policy towards the United States, especially upgrading the relations to strategic partnerships.

From Start-Up to Scale-Up

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilles Duruflé ◽  
Thomas Hellmann ◽  
Karen Wilson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smart Money ◽  
Start Up ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Creation

This chapter examines the challenge for entrepreneurial companies of going beyond the start-up phase and growing into large successful companies. We examine the long-term financing of these so-called scale-up companies, focusing on the United States, Europe, and Canada. The chapter first provides a conceptual framework for understanding the challenges of financing scale-ups. It emphasizes the need for investors with deep pockets, for smart money, for investor networks, and for patient money. It then shows some data about the various aspects of financing scale-ups in the United States, Europe, and Canada, showing how Europe and Canada are lagging behind the US relatively more at the scale-up than the start-up stage. Finally, the chapter raises the question of long-term public policies for supporting the creation of a better scale-up environment.

Germany's relations with the United States and China from a strategic triangle perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Biba
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Puzzle Piece ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Angela Merkel

Abstract As the Sino-American Great Power competition continues to intensify, newly-elected US President Joe Biden's administration now seeks to enlist the support of its allies and partners around the world. As Europe's largest economy and a, if not the, leading voice within the European Union, Germany represents an important puzzle-piece for Biden. But Germany, at least under outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel, has been reluctant to take sides. It is against this backdrop that this article looks into Germany's past and present trilateral relationships with the US and China through the theoretical lens of the so-called strategic triangle approach. Applying this approach, the article seeks to trace and explain German behaviour, as well as to elucidate the opportunities and pitfalls that have come with it. The article demonstrates that Germany's recently gained position as a ‘pivot’ (two positive bilateral relationships) between the US and Chinese ‘wings’ (positive bilateral relations with Germany and negative bilateral relations with each other) is desirable from the perspective of the strategic triangle. At the same time, being pivot is also challenging and hard to maintain. Alternative options, such as entering a US–German ‘marriage’ directed against China, are also problematic. The article therefore concludes that Germany has tough decisions to take going forward.

scholarly journals Gharacteristics and management style of Mexican enterprises in the United State

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Blanco Jimenez ◽  
J Valdez ◽  
Martha Fasci
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Management Style ◽  
Cultural Aspects ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
The Us ◽  
El Sistema

Key words: Enterprises, Foreign Direct Investment, management style, Mexico, United StatesAbstract: The United States and Mexico are two countries with vast cultural and economic differences, but their bilateral relations oftrade and Foreign Direct Investment (FDl) are very close. Their geographic proximity and their membership to NAFTA have increased the US-Mexican goods trade and have multiplied the Foreign Direct Investment (FDl) inflows into Mexico by seven folds during 1988-2000. Onthe other hand, the Mexican FDI inflows into the United States even though enjoyed a steady growth during last years, but without asubstantial ncrease. Although, there are some outside oolitical nd economical fctors that have influenced this evolution ofFDI in both countries, there are some managerial fctors that have made it difficult to integrate he Mexican enterprises with the US ones. Some researches confirm that in Mexico, cultural aspects influence in all possible ways to make business. These are different from the American management style, so the Mexican enterprises that want o invest in the American market must adopt the American management system, in order to have a successful investment. This research aims to: 1) Demonstrate thgrowing mutual economic trade interdependence between Mexico and the United States, 2) ldentify in which sectors and what areas are most of the Mexican enterprises located in the United States and 3) Compare the Mexican management style with the American system.Palabras Clave: Empresas, estilo de administración, Estados Unidos, Inversión Directa Extranjera, MéxicoResumen: Los Estados Unidos y México son dos países con importantes diferencias culturales y económicas, sinembargo su relación bilateral en el comercio y la inversión es muy estrecha. La proximidad geográfica y la firma del Tratado de Libre Comercio de Norte América han incrementado el comercio USA-México y han permitido que la inversión directa extranjera Americana enMéxico se multiplique por siete veces de 1988 a|2000. Por otro lado, la Inversión Directa Extranjera de México en los Estados Unidos, aunque presenta un incremento enestos últimos años, no ha tenido un crecimiento sustancial. Existen factores políticos y económicos que han influenciado esta evolución deIDE en ambos países, sin embargo, hay otros factores como la cultura empresarial que ha sido un elemento de dificultad para integrar las empresas Mexicanas en los Estados Unidos. Algunos investigadores confirman que la cultura empresarial infuye en la manera como las empresas Mexicanas hacen negocios, la cual es diferente a la cultura empresarial Americana, entonces, las empresas Mexicanas que quieran invertir y hacer negocio en el mercado Americano, tienen que adoptar elestilo empresarial Americano para tener éxito en sus inversiones. Por lo tanto, esta investigación trata de: 1) Demostrar el crecimiento de Ia dependencia económica comercial que existe entre México y los Estados Unidos, 2)ldentificar en que sectores y donde están establecidas la mayor parte de las empresas mexicanas en los Estados Unidos y 3) Comparar el estilo empresarial mexicanos con el sistema Americano. 

scholarly journals National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented Population

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
Immigration Debate ◽  
Legal Immigration ◽  
Us Immigration

The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,1 the legal immigration system,2 and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation's economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.

A brief history of Pakistan–USSR bilateral relations 1947–1991

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (01) ◽  
pp. 171-181
Author(s):  
Muhammad Naveed Ul Hasan Shah ◽  
Muhammad Irfan Mahsud ◽  
Azadar Ali Hamza
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Western World ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
History Of ◽  
Soviet Invasion ◽  
The Persian Gulf

Pakistan, since 1947 remains under the umbrella of US, as a result, relations of Pakistan were not smooth with anti US states including USSR. The US was to increase its role in the region in order to make secure the largest petroleum reserves in the Persian Gulf. Pakistan’s alignment with the western world was mainly to counter possible Indian aggression, not to lessen the Soviet influence in the region, but the approach was more or less thwarting Soviet interests in the region. Over 3 million Afghan refugees had travelled to Pakistan in the 1st year of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The main objective of the USA during the initial stages of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was primarily to ensure that the Soviet exercise would be a costly one. The United States of America supported Afghan militants with the help of Pakistan to organize them against the USSR. A general perception is that US did not want to be directly involved to thwart the Soviet invasion; rather USA handed over the operational aspect of the program to the Pakistan. The Pakistan was in charge of providing the funds and weapons to the mujahedin and setting up training camps. The US remained indecisive over the next course of action in Afghanistan and the Pakistan took the opportunity to carry out its own agenda in Afghanistan to promote their national interests.

scholarly journals International Religious Freedom Promotion and US Foreign Policy

Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Marsden
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Right ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Politics And Religion ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Political Background

The freedom to practice one’s religious belief is a fundamental human right and yet, for millions of people around the world, this right is denied. Yearly reports produced by the US State Department, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Open Doors International, Aid to the Church in Need and Release International reveal a disturbing picture of increased religious persecution across much of the world conducted at individual, community and state level conducted by secular, religious, terrorist and state actors. While religious actors both contribute to persecution of those of other faiths and beliefs and are involved in peace and reconciliation initiatives, the acceptance of the freedom to practice one’s faith, to disseminate that faith and to change one’s faith and belief is fundamental to considerations of the intersection of peace, politics and religion. In this article, I examine the political background of the United States’ promotion of international religious freedom, and current progress on advancing this under the Trump administration. International Religious Freedom (IRF) is contentious, and seen by many as the advancement of US national interests by other means. This article argues that through an examination of the accomplishments and various critiques of the IRF programme it is possible, and desirable, to discover what works, and where further progress needs to be made, in order to enable people around the world to enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

China, America, and Missile Defense: Conflicting National Interests

2000 ◽  
Vol 99 (638) ◽  
pp. 285-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul H. B. Godwin ◽  
Evan S. Medeiros
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Missile Defense ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Strategic Stability ◽  
Rogue State

“The United States and China must engage in some deep soul searching. What type of strategic stability does the United States seek with China? Is China a large rogue state whose strategic forces must be neutered by defensive systems, or is it a small Russia where strategic stability is achieved through mutual deterrence?”

How Prevalent is Performance-Related Pay in the United States? Current Incidence and Recent Trends

2013 ◽  
Vol 226 ◽  
pp. R4-R16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maury Gittleman ◽  
Brooks Pierce
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Wage ◽  
Potential Explanation ◽  
Us Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Current Incidence

We address basic questions about performance-related pay in the US. How widespread is it? What characteristics of employers and jobs are associated with it? What are recent trends in its incidence? What factors are responsible for these trends? Nearly two-fifths of hours worked in the US economy in 2013 were in jobs with performance-related pay, but this share has been declining. We consider several possible causes for this trend and find that they do not have much explanatory power. We do establish, however, that any potential explanation must also account for a long-term shift in the relative incidence of performance-related pay away from low-wage and toward high-wage jobs.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Abrams Ansari
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Identity ◽  
American Composers ◽  
The Us ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Changing Attitudes

The introduction provides an overview of the history of musical Americanism, from the 1920s to the 1970s, in tandem with an assessment of changing attitudes toward American identity in the United States. It introduces scholarly debates surrounding the Cold War politicization of serialism and tonality and describes the various opportunities for work with government exploited by American composers during the 1950s and 1960s. These opportunities included serving as advisers to the State Department, the US Information Agency, and organizations funded by the CIA, as well as touring overseas as government-funded cultural ambassadors. These contexts establish the basis for the book’s argument that the Cold War presented both challenges and opportunities for Americanist composers that would ultimately result in a rebranding of their style.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document