scholarly journals The U.S. Factor in Sino-Israeli and Indian-Israeli Relations

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-349
Author(s):  
Arman Artakovich Mikaelian ◽  
Vladimir Mikhailovich Morozov
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
Military Cooperation ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
China And India ◽  
The Us

The article analyses the US influence on Israeli policy towards both China and India. The United States has had and still has a significant influence on the dynamics of Israeli-Chinese and Israeli-Indian relations. The relevance of the issue stems from the growing importance of China and India in the world affairs amid rising tensions between the US and China that are spilling into a trade war. The article aims to explore the US influence on Israels policy in Asia. It examines the way how the Israeli leadership has adapted to Washingtons influence while promoting its strategic cooperation with China and India. The study comprises historical method, comparative analysis and historical-systematic analysis. The author comes to the following conclusions. First, Washingtons influence on Sino-Israeli relations has gone through five development stages: the first stage (1971-1989): implicit US support for the development of Sino-Israeli relations; the second stage (1990-1998): American criticism of military and technical cooperation between Israel and China; the third stage (1999-2005): Washingtons shift from criticism to pressure policy in order to prevent the Israeli leadership from military cooperation with China; the fourth stage (2006-2016): Israels acceptance of US demands and refusal to supply arms to Beijing (with Tel Aviv focusing on the development of trade and economic relations with China); the fifth stage (2017 - present): U.S. criticism of Israeli-Chinese economic cooperation amid worsening contacts between Beijing and Washington. The Israeli government is trying to meet Washingtons demands as well as preserve its strategic economic relations with Beijing. Second, the US factor, on the contrary, contributed to normalization of Indian-Israeli relations, having a positive impact on the development of trade, economic and military cooperation between Tel Aviv and New Delhi. Third, the US actions can be explained by an attempt to preserve its national interests. At the same time, the author stresses that the US influence on Israels policy in Asia complies with Washingtons regional priorities set forth in the 2017 US National Security Strategy.

scholarly journals Multipolarity and Stability in Asia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nu Hoang Anh Duong
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
National Interests ◽  
China And India ◽  
The Us ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Open Question ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
New Distribution

<p>This thesis considers the relationship between multipolarity and stability in Asia. Stability can be perceived as a system’s tendency towards equilibrium and will be examined in terms of war avoidance of the great powers and the stability of the distribution of power in the region. In the next twenty or thirty years, Asia will be increasingly multipolar in the form of either three powers (the United States (US), China, and India) or four (the US, China, India and Japan). I argue that a more multipolar Asia will reduce the likelihood of great power wars because of increasing economic interdependence and the calculations by states of their national interests. However, in terms of the stability of the distribution of power, the new distribution of power will involve a balance between the US, China and India, but it still remains contested due to questions raised about China’s and India’s legitimacy. In general, while Asia is more likely to be stable in Asia if it is multipolar, the likelihood of conflicts between China and India remains an open question. I conclude that the stability in Asia depends not only on the structure of the system but also other factors such as these major states’ uncontrolled actions and behaviors in response to other states in the system.</p>

scholarly journals Biden Administration and Canada's Economic Interests

2021 ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Evgeny Khoroshilov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
White House ◽  
The Us ◽  
Sustainable Economic Growth ◽  
American Economy

In the XXI century, there is a slight decline in the importance of the United States for Canada as an economic partner, but the United States remain the main external force influencing the development of the Canadian economy. Canada is interested in unhindered access of its goods to the American market, free flow of capital between the two countries, the development of North American economic integration and, most importantly, in sustainable economic growth in the United States. If the economic policy of the Joe Biden administration ensures the dynamic development of the American economy, then this will have a positive impact on the Canadian economy. At the same time, a number of provisions of Biden&apos;s economic strategy, such as raising the corporate income tax, strengthening control over mergers and acquisitions, and the &quot;Buy American&quot; policy, contradict Canadian economic interests. At first glance, the Biden administration&apos;s commitment to combating climate change is also negative for Canada. However, a number of Canadian stakeholders may also become beneficiaries of the new &quot;green&quot; course of the American economy. In general, the Canadian establishment believes that Canada’s national interests are in further integration of the US and Canadian economies. The Biden administration&apos;s tenure in the White House is unlikely to be an obstacle to this process.

scholarly journals Multipolarity and Stability in Asia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nu Hoang Anh Duong
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
National Interests ◽  
China And India ◽  
The Us ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Open Question ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
New Distribution

<p>This thesis considers the relationship between multipolarity and stability in Asia. Stability can be perceived as a system’s tendency towards equilibrium and will be examined in terms of war avoidance of the great powers and the stability of the distribution of power in the region. In the next twenty or thirty years, Asia will be increasingly multipolar in the form of either three powers (the United States (US), China, and India) or four (the US, China, India and Japan). I argue that a more multipolar Asia will reduce the likelihood of great power wars because of increasing economic interdependence and the calculations by states of their national interests. However, in terms of the stability of the distribution of power, the new distribution of power will involve a balance between the US, China and India, but it still remains contested due to questions raised about China’s and India’s legitimacy. In general, while Asia is more likely to be stable in Asia if it is multipolar, the likelihood of conflicts between China and India remains an open question. I conclude that the stability in Asia depends not only on the structure of the system but also other factors such as these major states’ uncontrolled actions and behaviors in response to other states in the system.</p>

scholarly journals India’s Capital Cusp in US–China Tensions

2020 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 2050003
Author(s):  
JAGANNATH P. PANDA ◽  
MRITTIKA GUHA SARKAR
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Global Power ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trade War

The intensifying trade war between the United States and China has been the focal point of geoeconomics as well as geopolitics, in the purview of the current times. Trump’s unilateral trade tariffs imposed on China and the latter’s retaliation with further duties against the United States has jostled the global trade chains, which has had repercussions beyond the two largest economies. Furthermore, while the G20 summit in Osaka witnessed the US and China returning to the negotiating table to end the tariffs and the Phase One deal between both the countries provided some amnesty, the tensions are much deeper rooted and are far from being resolved. However, as the implications of the trade war move beyond the stratagem of the US–China tug-of-war, many countries like India maneuver through the tussle to find a delicate equilibrium between national interests and global power politics. In this regard, this paper tends to analyze India’s perspective towards the trade war, arguing that New Delhi is taking a non-confrontational, measured approach to surpass the fluid international affairs; in a way that is letting New Delhi shape its decisions on the basis of its national interests and concerns, rather than taking sides.

Palestine Unbound

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Arab Israeli Conflict ◽  
The U.S

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.

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.

Optimizing Health Care Coalitions: Conceptual Frameworks and a Research Agenda

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 717-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel Hupert ◽  
Karen Biala ◽  
Tara Holland ◽  
Avi Baehr ◽  
Aisha Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hospital Preparedness

AbstractThe US health care system has maintained an objective of preparedness for natural or manmade catastrophic events as part of its larger charge to deliver health services for the American population. In 2002, support for hospital-based preparedness activities was bolstered by the creation of the National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program, now called the Hospital Preparedness Program, in the US Department of Health and Human Services. Since 2012, this program has promoted linking health care facilities into health care coalitions that build key preparedness and emergency response capabilities. Recognizing that well-functioning health care coalitions can have a positive impact on the health outcomes of the populations they serve, this article informs efforts to optimize health care coalition activity. We first review the landscape of health care coalitions in the United States. Then, using principles from supply chain management and high-reliability organization theory, we present 2 frameworks extending beyond the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response’s current guidance in a way that may help health care coalition leaders gain conceptual insight into how different enterprises achieve similar ends relevant to emergency response. We conclude with a proposed research agenda to advance understanding of how coalitions can contribute to the day-to-day functioning of health care systems and disaster preparedness. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness.2015;9:717–723)

scholarly journals What we talk about when we talk about Jerusalem: The duty of non-recognition and the prospects for peace after the US embassy’s relocation to the Holy City

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-647
Author(s):  
Marco Pertile ◽  
Sondra Faccio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Solution ◽  
Negative Reaction ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
Bilateral Agreement ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Holy City

AbstractThe article addresses the legality of the relocation of the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in light of the duty of non-recognition and the international consensus on the two-state solution. Analysing the massive reaction of states to the United States administration’s decision, the article takes stock of the practice on the status of Jerusalem and on the Israeli-Palestinian issue more broadly. The authors conclude that the almost unanimous negative reaction of states and their commitment to the two-state solution will remain a dead letter if the solution to the crisis is left to a future bilateral agreement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document