The Benefits of Alliances

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakub J. Grygiel ◽  
A. Wess Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Important Benefit ◽  
Global Reach

This chapter assesses the benefits of frontier alliances for the United States both historically and today. The most important benefit that the United States derives from alliances is through their use as tools of geopolitical management that enhance its ability to compete against other states. For the United States as a maritime power of global reach, using forward-deployed alliances in the rimlands of Eurasia is a cost-effective tool for managing the international system that is preferable to the strategic alternatives now being presented for U.S. foreign policy. From this emerges the main imperative of U.S. grand strategy: to prevent the emergence of a power or combination of powers within the Eurasian landmass that could invade or economically dominate the United States. America has three basic options for how it does so: direct containment, retreat and reentry, and alliances.

US grand strategy after the Cold War: Can realism explain it? Should realism guide it?

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M Walt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Structural Constraints ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Policy Elites

This article uses realism to explain past US grand strategy and prescribe what it should be today. Throughout its history, the United States has generally acted as realism depicts. The end of the Cold War reduced the structural constraints that states normally face in anarchy, and a bipartisan coalition of foreign policy elites attempted to use this favorable position to expand the US-led ‘liberal world order’. Their efforts mostly failed, however, and the United States should now return to a more realistic strategy – offshore balancing – that served it well in the past. Washington should rely on local allies to uphold the balance of power in Europe and the Middle East and focus on leading a balancing coalition in Asia. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump lacks the knowledge, competence, and character to pursue this sensible course, and his cavalier approach to foreign policy is likely to damage America’s international position significantly.

1. Theories of US foreign policy

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter examines some of the competing theories that have been advanced to explain U.S. foreign policy. In trying to explain the foreign policy of the United States, a number of competing theories have been developed by International Relations scholars. Some theories focus on the role of the international system in shaping American foreign policy while others argue that various domestic factors are the driving force. The chapter first considers some of the obstacles to constructing a theory of foreign policy before discussing some of the competing theories of American foreign policy, including defensive realism, offensive realism, liberalism, Marxism, neoclassical realism, and constructivism. The chapter proceeds by reviewing the theoretical debate over the origins of the Cold War and the debate over the most appropriate grand strategy that the United States should follow in the post-Cold War era.

scholarly journals What Determines Foreign Policy in Latin America? Systemic versus Domestic Factors in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2008

2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Octavio Amorim Neto ◽  
Andrés Malamud
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Political ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Systemic Variables

AbstractIs it domestic politics or the international system that more decisively influences foreign policy? This article focuses on Latin America's three largest powers to identify patterns and compare outcomes in their relations with the regional hegemon, the United States. Through a statistical analysis of voting behavior in the UN General Assembly, we examine systemic variables (both realist and liberal) and domestic variables (institutional, ideological, and bureaucratic) to determine their relative weights between 1946 and 2008. The study includes 4,900 votes, the tabulation of 1,500 ministers according to their ideological persuasion, all annual trade entries, and an assessment of the political strength of presidents, cabinets, and parties per year. The findings show that while Argentina's voting behavior has been determined mostly by domestic factors and Mexico's by realist systemic ones, Brazil's has a more complex blend of determinants, but also with a prevalence of realist systemic variables.

The Limits of U.S. Military Capability: Lessons from Vietnam and Iraq. By James H. Lebovic

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1170-1172
Author(s):  
Robert Jervis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Capability

Foreign policy difficulties usually produce extensive scholarship. Vietnam led to numerous appraisals and reappraisals, many of which paralleled the protests in being heartfelt and radical. Perhaps because of the lack of a draft, Iraq's protests have been cooler and more muted, and the scholarship has tended to be more analytical and mainstream. James Lebovic's excellent study looks at both cases to drive home the argument that was part of the Vietnam critique: Even if the United States is the most powerful state in the international system, there are sharp limits to what it can accomplish, and its very power creates some of those limits (see William J. Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power, 1966)

scholarly journals Alterações na Política Externa da Arábia Saudita: uma análise a partir do modelo de Hermann | Changes in Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Policy: an analysis under the Hermann’s model

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. e59430
Author(s):  
Bruno Hendler ◽  
Felipe Porta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
External Shocks ◽  
Government Documents ◽  
Middle East Politics ◽  
The Arab Spring

O presente artigo busca analisar quais foram os graus de mudança percebidos na política externa da Arábia Saudita nas suas relações com China e Estados Unidos. Para a realização desta análise, utilizamos os conceitos cunhados por Charles Hermann (1990), que explicam as alterações em política externa de um país a partir de quatro graus de mudança e quatro fontes geradoras destas mudanças. Não obstante, a utilização de livros, artigos, notícias e documentos oficiais dos governos foram essenciais para o desenvolvimento deste trabalho. Assim, argumentamos que há um gradual deslocamento dos Estados Unidos para a China como parceiro prioritário do referido país a partir de 2010, tendência esta acelerada pelos choques externos, como a Primavera Árabe, a queda nos preços internacionais do petróleo e o afastamento dos Estados Unidos do Oriente Médio, e pela ascensão de Mohammed bin Salman ao poder executivo do Reino. Tal deslocamento está associado ao aumento na intensidade e à alteração dos meios pelos quais o país se relaciona com a China. Entretanto, reforçamos que esta tendência não significa um abandono, pela Arábia Saudita, de sua histórica relação com os Estados Unidos.Palavras-chave: Arábia Saudita; Política Externa; Hermann.ABSTRACTThe aim of this research is to analyze the levels of changes identified in Saudi Arabia's foreign policy in its relations with China and the United States. To carry out this analysis, we used the concepts formulated by Charles Hermann (1990) about levels and sources of change in a country's foreign policy. Nevertheless, the use of books, articles, news and official government documents were essential for the development of this article. Hence, we argue that there is a gradual shift from the United States to China as a priority partner of Saudi Arabia since 2010, a trend that has been accelerated by external shocks from the International System, such as the Arab Spring, the fall of the international oil prices and the United States withdraw from the Middle East politics and by the rise of Mohammed bin Salman to the executive power. Such a shift is associated with an increase in intensity and a change in the means by which the country relates to China. Notwithstanding, this trend does not mean that Saudi Arabia abandoned its historic relationship with the United States. Keywords: Saudi Arabia; Foreign Policy; Hermann. Recebido em: 28 abr. 2021 | Aceito em: 30 set. 2021.

scholarly journals Can We Reinvent International Studies on Southeast Asia for the Post Western World?

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Suzie Sudarman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Western World ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
International Studies ◽  
The Rich

Since the end of the Cold War the Asia-Pacific region draws increased attention but there is a gap between the rich comparative and foreign policy scholarship on China, Japan, and the United States with the wider world of international relations theory. Although Pierre Lizee’s work, quoting Stanley Hoffmann, puts forward an argument that international studies as a discipline assumes that it speaks to the nature of politics throughout the entire world,1 it is evident that the study of Southeast Asia in particular, tends to be under-theorized.2 The images, concepts, and theories which underlie international studies as Hoffmann argued, must be recognized for what they are: product of the post-1945 era, when “to study United States foreign policy was to study the international system and to study the international system could not fail to bring one back to the role of the United States.”3

The United States, Moral Norms, and Governing Ideas in World Politics: A Review Essay

1993 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 223-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathal J. Nolan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Moral Norms ◽  
Traditional Role ◽  
Moral Principles

Nolan reviews three works describing the influence of ethics on modern international relations, namely Code of Peace: Ethics and Security in the World of the Warlord States (Dorothy V. Jones); The Age of Rights (Louis Henkin); and Morality and American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ethics in International Affairs (Robert W. McElroy). All present timely academic and historical arguments for existing opportunities to bring ethics into world politics. Jones and Henkin concern themselves most with moral principles involved in establishing international law and organizations, while McElroy discusses the same issues from the unique perspective of U.S. foreign policy. Nolan gives full recognition to the traditional role of democratic states, particularly the United States., in shaping the moral norms of the international system in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries through ethics that are Western in origin but certainly not in their inherent content.

China's Century? Why America's Edge Will Endure

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Beckley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Competitive Advantages ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Military Presence

Two assumptions dominate current foreign policy debates in the United States and China. First, the United States is in decline relative to China. Second, much of this decline is the result of globalization and the hegemonic burdens the United States bears to sustain globalization. Both of these assumptions are wrong. The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991. Moreover, globalization and hegemony do not erode U.S. power; they reinforce it. The United States derives competitive advantages from its hegemonic position, and globalization allows it to exploit these advantages, attracting economic activity and manipulating the international system to its benefit. The United States should therefore continue to prop up the global economy and maintain a robust diplomatic and military presence abroad.

National Interests and Grand Strategy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek S. Reveron ◽  
Nikolas K. Gvosdev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Political System ◽  
International System ◽  
National Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Prosperity ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Starting Point

It is axiomatic that the foreign policy decisions of any country, including those of the United States, should be derived and based upon an understanding of the “national interest.” Yet there is no single, overarching conception of what constitutes the national interest or what should be considered as national interests. We see the idea of the national interest as an important starting point—a concept that enables national security policymakers to articulate what matters to the country and how a nation should set its priorities. National interests are enduring, such as protecting the integrity of the state and promoting economic prosperity. The domestic political system, international system, and organizational interests within the national security bureaucracy also shape national interests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document