The Curious Case of Cuba in American Foreign Policy

1994 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bernell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
Fidel Castro ◽  
The Past ◽  
Global Issue ◽  
Political Differences ◽  
International Behavior

The bitter rivalry between the United States and Cuba has occupied a position as one of the principal political disputes in the Western Hemisphere for the past 35 years. Since the rise of Fidel Castro, the governments of these two countries have placed themselves on opposite sides of almost every major regional and global issue. They have long held vastly different ideas about what constitutes a good and just government, what kind of international behavior is legitimate, and the ends that foreign policy should serve. Moreover, they have not only harbored political differences but also maintained a very intense dislike of one another. The United States has attempted to sustain a picture of Cuba as an international outlaw, the source of much turmoil, crisis, and mischief in the world. Adding a personal dimension to the attacks, the United States has also sought to demonize Castro, creating and continually portraying an image of him as the embodiment of evil.

Fear and Loathing of Fidel Castro: Sources of US Policy Toward Cuba

2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
LOUIS A. PÉREZ
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
Cuban Revolution ◽  
Fidel Castro ◽  
The Past ◽  
Important Policy ◽  
Modus Vivendi

The Cuban Revolution shattered some of the most important policy formulations by which the United States had traditionally defined its place and defended its interests in the western hemisphere, for which Fidel Castro has been inalterably held responsible. Much of US policy towards Cuba during the past forty years has been driven by a determination to punish Cuba for the transgressions of Fidel Castro and a determination to resist a modus vivendi with Cuba as long as he remains in power.

American Foreign Policy in Korea and Vietnam: Comparative Case Studies

1975 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Jin Park
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
New Era ◽  
The Past ◽  
Comparative Case Studies

So much has been written in the past few decades about the United States involvement in the Korean and Vietnamese wars that it is difficult to move beyond the usual arguments and the rather skewed assumptions on which they rest. However, the need for fresh and serious review of these matters is essential to understand the new era of multipolar politics now dawning. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to ascertain persistent patterns of the underlying rationale of the politics of American involvement in Asia; second, to critically analyze United States foreign policy in Korea and Vietnam during the war periods of 1950–53 and 1961–73.

scholarly journals American Realism Versus American Imperialism

2004 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Campbell Craig
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Imperialism ◽  
The Past ◽  
American Policy

This article reviews three recent books critical of America's new “imperial” foreign policy, examines whether the United States can properly be compared to empires of the past, and identifies three aspects of contemporary American policy that may well be called imperialist. It also addresses some of the main objections to recent U.S. foreign policy made by American realist scholars and argues that traditional interstate realism can no longer readily apply to the problem ofAmerican unipolar preponderance over an anarchical, nuclear-armed world.

Anglo-american policy in Greece (1946-50)

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spero Simeon Zachary Paravantes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Years ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Dramatic Shift ◽  
Current Financial Crisis ◽  
Post War

While trying to understand and explain the origins and dynamics of Anglo-American foreign policy in the pre and early years of the Cold War, the role thatperception played in the design and implementation of foreign policy became acentral focus. From this point came the realization of a general lack of emphasisand research into the ways in which the British government managed to convincethe United States government to assume support for worldwide British strategicobjectives. How this support was achieved is the central theme of this dissertation.This work attempts to provide a new analysis of the role that the British played in the dramatic shift in American foreign policy from 1946 to 1950. Toachieve this shift (which also included support of British strategic interests in theEastern Mediterranean) this dissertation argues that the British used Greece, first asa way to draw the United States further into European affairs, and then as a way toanchor the United States in Europe, achieving a guarantee of security of theEastern Mediterranean and of Western Europe.To support these hypotheses, this work uses mainly the British andAmerican documents relating to Greece from 1946 to 1950 in an attempt to clearlyexplain how these nations made and implemented policy towards Greece duringthis crucial period in history. In so doing it also tries to explain how Americanforeign policy in general changed from its pre-war focus on non-intervention, to the American foreign policy to which the world has become accustomed since 1950. To answer these questions, I, like the occupying (and later intervening)powers did, must use Greece as an example. In this, I hope that I may be forgivensince unlike them, I intend not to make of it one. My objectives for doing so lie notin justifying policy, but rather in explaining it. This study would appear to havespecial relevance now, not only for the current financial crisis which has placedGreece once again in world headlines, but also for the legacy of the Second WorldWar and the post-war strife the country experienced which is still playing out todaywith examples like the Distomo massacre, German war reparations and on-goingsocial, academic and political strife over the legacy of the Greek Civil War.

Protectionist Empire: Trade, Tariffs, and United States Foreign Policy, 1890–1914

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin O. Fordham
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Political Cooperation ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
The One

Between 1890 and 1914, the United States acquired overseas colonies, built a battleship fleet, and intervened increasingly often in Latin America and East Asia. This activism is often seen as the precursor to the country's role as a superpower after 1945 but actually served very different goals. In contrast to its pursuit of a relatively liberal international economic order after 1945, the United States remained committed to trade protection before 1914. Protectionism had several important consequences for American foreign policy on both economic and security issues. It led to a focus on less developed areas of the world that would not export manufactured goods to the United States instead of on wealthier European markets. It limited the tactics available for promoting American exports, forcing policymakers to seek exclusive bilateral agreements or unilateral concessions from trading partners instead of multilateral arrangements. It inhibited political cooperation with other major powers and implied an aggressive posture toward these states. The differences between this foreign policy and the one the United States adopted after 1945 underscore the critical importance not just of the search for overseas markets but also of efforts to protect the domestic market.

scholarly journals Trump, Russia, and China: The First 100 Days

2017 ◽  
pp. 116-122
Author(s):  
M. Share
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Key Indicator ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future

On April 30 the United States and the World marked the 100th day in office of Donald Trump as President of the United States. The first 100 days are considered as a key indicator of the fortunes for a new President’s program. This article briefly reviews the 2016 campaign and election, the 11 week transition period, his first 100 days, a brief examination of both American-Russian relations and Sino-American relations, and lastly, what the future bodes for each under a Trump Presidency. The 100 Day period has been chaotic, shifting, and at times incoherent. He has made 180 degree shifts toward many major issues, including Russia and China, which has only confused numerous world leaders, including Presidents Putin and Xi. There has been a definite disconnection between what Trump says about Russia, and what his advisors and cabinet officials say. So far Trump has conducted a highly personalized and transactional foreign policy. All is up for negotiation at this a huge turning point in American foreign policy, the greatest one since 1945. Given all the world’s instabilities today, a rapprochement between the United States and Russia is a truly worthwhile objective, and should be strongly pursued.

scholarly journals The world public opinion towards the American foreign policy of presidents of the United States of North America in the years 2001–2016

2021 ◽  
pp. 163-184
Author(s):  
Przemysław Potocki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
World System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa

The article is based on an analysis of certain aspects of how the public opinion of selected nations in years 2001–2016 perceived the American foreign policy and the images of two Presidents of the United States (George W. Bush, Barack Obama). In order to achieve these research goals some polling indicators were constructed. They are linked with empirical assessments related to the foreign policy of the U.S. and the political activity of two Presidents of the United States of America which are constructed by nations in three segments of the world system. Results of the analysis confirmed the research hypotheses. The position of a given nation in the structure of the world system influenced the dynamics of perception and the directions of empirical assessments (positive/negative) of that nation’s public opinion about the USA.

scholarly journals Features of the US Foreign Policy Towards the Central Asian States

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
E. V. Kryzhko ◽  
P. I. Pashkovsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Mineral Resources ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Us

The article examines the features of the US foreign policy towards the Central Asian states in the post-bipolar period. The imperatives and constants, as well as the transformation of Washington’s Central Asian policy, have been characterized. It is shown that five Central Asian states have been in the focus of American foreign policy over the past thirty years. In the process of shaping the US foreign policy in Central Asia, the presence of significant reserves of energy and mineral resources in the region was of great importance. Therefore, rivalry for Caspian energy resources and their transportation routes came to the fore. In addition to diversifying transport and logistics flows and supporting American companies, the US energy policy in Central Asia was aimed at preventing the restoration of Russia’s economic and political influence, as well as countering the penetration of China, which is interested in economic cooperation with the countries of the region. During the period under review, the following transformation of mechanisms and means of Washington’s policy in the Central Asian direction was observed: the policy of “exporting democracy”; attempts to “nurture” the pro-American elite; striving to divide states into separate groups with permanent “appointment” of leaders; involvement in a unified military system to combat terrorism; impact on the consciousness of the population in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals; building cooperation on a pragmatic basis due to internal difficulties and external constraints. Central Asian states sympathized with the American course because of their interest in technology and investment. At the same time, these states in every possible way distanced themselves from the impulses of “democratization” from Washington. Kazakhstan was a permanent regional ally of the United States, to which Uzbekistan was striving to join. The second echelon in relations with the American side was occupied by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. A feature of the positions of the Central Asian countries is the maximum benefit from cooperation with Washington while building good-neighborly relations with Russia and China, which is in dissonance with the regional imperatives of the United States. In the future, the American strategy in Central Asia will presumably proceed from the expediency of attracting regional allies and stimulating contradictions in order to contain geopolitical rivals in the region.

Understanding and Improving U.S. Financial Sanctions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Harris ◽  
Robert B. Kahn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Tools ◽  
The Past

This chapter uses the Iran and Russia cases to understand how modern U.S. financial sanctions operate (including how they interact with traditional tools of foreign policy) and how to better incorporate them into the United States’ standing arsenal of foreign policy tools. It does so by considering three broad sets of questions: First, how has the use of financial sanctions evolved over the past fifteen years? Second, what are the main ways in which financial sanctions impose costs on sanctioned countries? Finally, how should U.S. policymakers alter the use of financial sanctions to maximize their impact, sustain their strength, and minimize problematic side effects?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document