scholarly journals Coloso fragmentado: The “intermestic” agenda and Latin American foreign policy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Long
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Veto Players ◽  
Robert Putnam ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

“Intermestic” issues, including trade, migration, and drug-trafficking, dominate contemporary U.S.-Latin American relations and matter deeply to Latin American and Caribbean states. The differing dynamics these create within the U.S. foreign policy process have been broadly explored. However, this article asks what effects the dynamics of U.S. intermesticity have on Latin American and Caribbean foreign policy towards the United States. Building on work by Robert Putnam and Helen Milner, it argues that intermestic issues have narrower win-sets and more veto players than traditional foreign policy issues. This complicates attempts at influencing U.S. policies, putting Latin American and Caribbean states at a disadvantage. Intermestic diplomacy demands different strategies. The argument is examined against the case of the U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking dispute.

Struggle for the Turf

1985 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-415
Author(s):  
Henry Trofimenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Political Decision Making ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
The U.S

For anyone whose job is to study the United States, the memoirs of its statesmen provide more than merely entertaining reading. They not only give you a closer insight into the “kitchen” of statesmanship and political decision making; they also provide an opportunity to check the assumptions and paradigms that were constructed earlier to analyze the policy of any particular administration. The memoirs confirm that in spite of hundreds of books and thousands of articles in the U.S. press that discuss specific policies, as well as daily debates in Congress and its committees, press conferences, and official statements, the policy process is not as open as it might seem at first glance. Rather, American foreign policy is made within a very restricted circle of the “initiated”—official and unofficial presidential advisers, including selected members of the Cabinet.

scholarly journals The Myth of 9/11 in Latin America

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-40
Author(s):  
Ana Isabel Lopez Garcia
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Latin American ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
The U.S

It is often argued that the first and most visible impact of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 has been the reordering of Washington’s priorities in its relations with Latin America. The United States (U.S.) has focused its attention outside the hemisphere and placed Latin America at the “bottom of U.S. terrorist agenda” (Youngers 2003). Various scholars argue that the U.S has returned to its Cold-War stance, in which it only notices those developments in Latin America that directly challenge U.S. interests (Hakim 2006). Accordingly, after 9/11 U.S. security demands have overshadowed other issues that Latin American countries consider priorities (Youngers 2003, 2). Susan Kauffman (2002), for instance, posits that: “once again the United States is looking at Latin America through a security lens, while Latin America wants the emphasis to remain on economic development.” The effects of U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America after 9/11 have not repeated the pattern of the Cold War. Although Latin America no longer is the overriding priority of American foreign policy, the U.S. has not neglected the region, nor, as many analysts have argued (Shifter 2004; Youngers 2003; Hakim 2006; Roett 2006), has it become disengaged from the hemisphere. The terrorist attacks did not introduce a different agenda for U.S.-Latin American relations from that of the post-Cold-War period. Free trade, illegal migration and the fight against drugs have continued to be the main issues of U.S.-Latin American relations. Even the trend towards militarization of U.S. foreign policy began in Latin America long before the terrorist attacks. U.S.-Latin America relations have been affected significantly not by the consequences of 9/11, but rather by the negative effects of the U.S-promoted economic model in the region. The failures of the so-called Washington Consensus are not linked to the terrorist attacks.

American foreign policy in Middle East: new transformations under W. Bush and Obama administrations

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 174
Author(s):  
Abdulkhaliq Shamel Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
General Principle ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
President Obama ◽  
Middle East Countries ◽  
Syrian Revolution ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
The U.S

This study attempts to diagnose the changes witnessed by the American foreign policy in the Middle East, in both of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, this phase witnessed shift at the level of the visions, beliefs and attitudes. which reflected on the nature of the of dealing with the issues of the region , and embodied the most prominent features of change to adopt the U.S. policy toward the countries of the region in a general principle encapsulates policies , texture pressure in order to establish the values of democracy and human rights as a philosophy and a general principle , and inwardly save its interests in the Middle East , the United States sought for six decades in middle east countries  to achieve stability on the expense of democracy , and through the support of totalitarian existing regimes , and cracking down on the opposition .but the events of September 11 forced them to change the approach to foreign policy encouraging democracy and claim to impose reforms. the study exposed to the George W. Bush hard doctrine, unilateral, military tool that give superiority to the implementation of the objectives of its foreign policy, on the contrast of president Obama doctrine with its realistic approach, which sees the need to combine all the tools of foreign policy to implement its objectives, Also this study return to realistic policy in its alliances and legitimacy, as well as dealt approach U.S. political discourse towards the Muslim world, and seek the main topics like, the war on Iraq in 2003and its impact on reformation in the Middle East .And the U.S. position on the Arab Spring, specifically the Syrian revolution. Also this study deals with U.S policy towards Iran Nuclear file, and The Arab-Israeli conflict .The study concluded that foreign policy changes occurred in George W. Bush second presidency is differ from his first presidency, and this transformation take a wider dimension and more comprehensive in Barack Obama's presidency.

21. American foreign policy after 9/11

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Kennedy-Pipe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
Power Set ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

This chapter examines U.S. foreign policy after 9/11 with a view to looking at continuities as well as the disjunctions of Washington’s engagement with the world. It first considers the impact of 9/11 on the United States, particularly its foreign policy, before discussing the influence of neo-conservatism on the making of U.S. foreign policy during the presidency of George W. Bush. It then analyses debates about the nature of U.S. foreign policy over the last few decades and its ability to create antagonisms that can and have returned to haunt the United States both at home and abroad. It also explores how increasing belief in the utility of military power set the parameters of U.S. foreign policy after 9/11, along with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and concludes with an assessment of Barak Obama’s approach with regards to terrorism and his foreign policy agenda more generally.

7. The foreign policy process: executive, Congress, intelligence

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Foley
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
Lead Agency ◽  
Judicial Recognition ◽  
The U.S

This chapter examines the U.S. foreign policy process which encompasses the executive, Congress, and intelligence. It first considers American foreign policy as a primary agency of government adaptation before discussing the role of the executive as the lead agency of systemic evolution in response to foreign policy needs, taking into account the executive prerogative and judicial recognition of inherent executive power. It then describes the political and technical difficulties experienced by Congress in matching the executive in foreign policy. It also explores the ramifications of 9/11 and the war on terror for American foreign policy and concludes with an overview of U.S. foreign policy under Barack Obama.

Latin American Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Below
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Aid ◽  
Latin American ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Future Research

Latin American foreign policy has drawn the attention of scholars since the 1960s. Foreign policy–related literature began to surge in the 1980s and 1990s, with a focus on both economic and political development. As development in the region lagged behind that of its northern neighbors, Latin American had to rely on foreign aid, largely from the United States. In addition to foreign aid, two of the most prevalent topics discussed in the literature are trade/economic liberalization and regional economic integration (for example, Mercosur and NAFTA). During and after the Cold War, Latin America played a strategic foreign policy role as it became the object of a rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union hoping to expand their power and/or contain that of the other. This role was also explored in a considerably larger body of research, along with the decision of Latin American nations to diversify their foreign relations in the post–Cold War era. Furthermore, scholars have analyzed different regions/countries that have become new and/or expanded targets of Latin American foreign policy, including the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Despite the substantial amount of scholarship that has accumulated over the years, a unified theory of Latin American foreign policy remains elusive. Future research should therefore focus on the development of a theory that incorporates the multiple explanatory variables that influence foreign policy formulation and takes into account their relative importance and the effects on each other.

scholarly journals THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

2016 ◽  
pp. 181-189
Author(s):  
V. V. Pavlov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Security Council ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
National Security Council ◽  
White House ◽  
The U.S

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.

The Carnegie Poll on Values in American Foreign Policy

1989 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 297-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Aid ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
The U.S

In a brief summary of a poll conducted by the Carnegie Council, Myers outlines the American public's views on issues ranging from foreign policy/peace issues to economic security, defense, and human rights. The underlying perception of the United States as the “moral nation” raises a fundamental question: How deeply imbedded is the distinction between words and deeds in American foreign policy? Some results of the survey defied explanation. “Why are Americans so avid about human rights abroad, yet so reluctant to commit foreign aid, and so indignant about the U.S. dollars that are spent on NATO and Japanese security? Logic and sentiment remain interwoven,” concludes Myers.

Conclusion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Owen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Western History ◽  
The U.S

This book has examined ideological contests in Western history and what they tell us about Islamism's prolonged struggle with secularism. In conclusion, it offers a few suggestions on what the United States ought to do and not to do in the Middle East and what this means for American foreign policy. It argues that the United States simply cannot decide the contest between Islamism and secularism and so should resort to what political scientist Jonathan Monten calls “exemplarism.” The U.S. government should also remember that, although it cannot resolve the Muslims' ideological contest by force, it can influence how Muslims themselves resolve it. This concluding chapter also considers two things that the United States can do to nudge constitutional democracy: to engage in public diplomacy and to remain the attractive society that it always has been—to be true to itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document