scholarly journals Looking Up from Down Under: New Zealand’s best options amid China’s rise and the U.S. foreign policy rebalance to the Asia-Pacific

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ryan Friesen
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
China’S Rise ◽  
The Us ◽  
China's Rise

<p>With the rise of China and the United States (US) foreign policy rebalance to the Asia-Pacific meeting in international space, small states like New Zealand have decisions to make about how to manage their balancing act between the two major powers. This research is the result of an extensive literature review of the available material coming from international relations scholars, diplomats, governments, and news media. The focus of this thesis is on the options a small state like New Zealand has amid China’s rise and the US foreign policy ‘pivot’ to the Asia-Pacific since late-2011, but some attention has been given to how the US rebalance has been rolled out and New Zealand’s position therein. The findings point to a spectrum of options available to New Zealand which goes between choosing a China-centric economic focused set of foreign policies on one end, and backing US interests both in economic and security terms on the other end. It is clear New Zealand has chosen a middle ground and has adopted a hedging strategy designed to optimize its relationship with both the US and China. The task ahead for New Zealand is to use what influence it has to foster an environment where the likelihood of conflict between the two major powers is reduced without giving up too much independence in foreign policy decision making.</p>

scholarly journals Looking Up from Down Under: New Zealand’s best options amid China’s rise and the U.S. foreign policy rebalance to the Asia-Pacific

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ryan Friesen
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
China’S Rise ◽  
The Us ◽  
China's Rise

<p>With the rise of China and the United States (US) foreign policy rebalance to the Asia-Pacific meeting in international space, small states like New Zealand have decisions to make about how to manage their balancing act between the two major powers. This research is the result of an extensive literature review of the available material coming from international relations scholars, diplomats, governments, and news media. The focus of this thesis is on the options a small state like New Zealand has amid China’s rise and the US foreign policy ‘pivot’ to the Asia-Pacific since late-2011, but some attention has been given to how the US rebalance has been rolled out and New Zealand’s position therein. The findings point to a spectrum of options available to New Zealand which goes between choosing a China-centric economic focused set of foreign policies on one end, and backing US interests both in economic and security terms on the other end. It is clear New Zealand has chosen a middle ground and has adopted a hedging strategy designed to optimize its relationship with both the US and China. The task ahead for New Zealand is to use what influence it has to foster an environment where the likelihood of conflict between the two major powers is reduced without giving up too much independence in foreign policy decision making.</p>

The Influence of Personal Factor on US Foreign Policy (Secretary of State John Kerry)

2014 ◽  
pp. 72-83
Author(s):  
A. Borisova
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Leader ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa

The last five years defined an alternative course in the US foreign policy. Obama's reelection caused staff transfers which notably influenced the course. This comprehensive process is based on tremendous work conducted by the Administration of Barak Obama, in particular by John Kerry, who was appointed as a Secretary of State in 2013. His personality plays a significant role in American domestic and foreign policy interrelation. Adoption or rejection of the bills, which are well-known today, depended in large on a range of circumstances, such as personality, life journey and political leader career of the today's Secretary of State. John Kerry’s professional life is mainly associated with domestic policy; nevertheless, he has always been interested in foreign relations and national security issues. Those concerns generally included: non-proliferation, US security, ecological problems, fight against terrorism. The article is intended to highlight Kerry’s efforts in each of these fields, showing not only his actions, but also difficult process of adoption or banning bills in the USA. The author tried to display the whole complicated decision-making process among different parties, businessmen and politicians, law and money clashes. The results of many former endeavors can be seen today, in the modern US policy. Based on assumptions about Secretary of State’s beliefs, certain road map can be predicted. In conclusion, the article offers several courses, where the United States are likely to be most active during the next few years. It can be judged exactly which way some current political issues will develop, how the US foreign policy will be shaped by today's decision-makers in the White House.

scholarly journals THE GENESIS OF THE US FOREIGN POLICY: THE ORIGIN OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE TOPIC, 1610–1820S

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (73) (2) ◽  
pp. 81-93
Author(s):  
D. V. Dorofeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
North American ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us

The research is devoted to the study of the origin of the historiography of the topic of the genesis of the US foreign policy. The key thesis of the work challenges the established position in the scientific literature about the fundamental role of the work of T. Lyman, Jr. «The diplomacy of the United States: being an account of the foreign relations of the country, from the first treaty with France, in 1778, to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, with Great Britain», published in 1826. The article puts forward an alternative hypothesis: the emergence of the historiography of the genesis of the foreign policy of the United States occurred before the beginning of the second quarter of the XIX century – during the colonial period and the first fifty years of the North American state. A study of the works of thirty-five authors who worked during the 1610s and 1820s showed that amater historians expressed a common opinion about North America’s belonging to the Eurocentric system of international relations; they were sure that both the colonists and the founding fathers perceived international processes on the basis of raison d’être. The conceptualization of the intellectual heritage of non-professional historians allowed us to distinguish three interpretations of the origin of the United States foreign policy: «Autochthonous» – focused on purely North American reasons; «Atlantic» – postulated the borrowing of European practice of international relations by means of the system of relations that developed in the Atlantic in the XVII–XVIII centuries; «Imperial» – stated the adaptation of the British experience. The obtained data refute the provisions of scientific thought of the XX–XXI centuries and create new guidelines for further study of the topic.

scholarly journals Conflict in the Middle East: The US and the Turkish-Kurdish Conflict

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 11-21
Author(s):  
Matthew Dotzler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Boiling Point ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Northern Iraq ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
Kurdish Conflict

The conflict between Turkey and the Kurds is once again reaching a boiling point. Following the defeat of ISIL in northern Iraq and Syria, Turkey is now concerned that the returning Kurdish militias pose a threat to its national security. The United States, as an ally to both parties, finds itself in a unique position to push for diplomatic solutions and to mediate the conflict before it grows out of control once again. This paper will examine the history of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, the actors involved, and how US foreign policy can be used to try and deter yet another war in the region.

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.

1. Introduction: US foreign policy—past, present, and future

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cox ◽  
Doug Stokes
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
White House ◽  
Pressure Groups ◽  
East Russia ◽  
Key Issues

This work examines how domestic politics and culture shape US foreign policy, with particular emphasis on the role of institutions and processes. It considers the ways in which pressure groups and elites determine influence what the United States does abroad, the importance of regional shifts and media and their impact on the making of US foreign policy, and US relations with Europe, the Middle East, Russia, the Asia-Pacific region, Latin America, and Africa. The text also discusses key issues relevant to American foreign policy, such as global terrorism, the global environment, gender, and religion. It argues that whoever resides in the White House will continue to give the military a central role in the conduct of US foreign policy, and that whoever ‘runs’ American foreign policy will still have to deal with the same challenges both at home and abroad.

scholarly journals In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy?

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin E. Goldsmith ◽  
Yusaku Horiuchi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
The Us ◽  
Mass Publics ◽  
Voting Decisions

Does “soft power” matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of these countries? The authors examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US. They draw their basic conceptual framework from Joseph Nye, who uses various indicators of opinion about the US to assess US soft power. But the authors argue that his theory lacks the specificity needed for falsifiable testing. They refine it by focusing on foreign public opinion about US foreign policy, an underemphasized element of Nye's approach. Their regression analysis shows that foreign public opinion has a significant and large effect on troop commitments to the war in Iraq, even after controlling for various hard power factors. It also has significant, albeit small, effects on policies toward the International Criminal Court and on voting decisions in the UN General Assembly. These results support the authors' refined theoretical argument about soft power: public opinion about US foreign policy in foreign countries does affect their policies toward the US, but this effect is conditional on the salience of an issue for mass publics.

scholarly journals Contemporary Problems of a “Grand Strategy” in the US Foreign Policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 27-39
Author(s):  
S. Kislitsyn
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Leadership ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Expert Community ◽  
Policy Elites

The research examines the main problems of a grand strategy in the US foreign policy. Attention is paid to the conceptual understanding of this term, its historical development, and the current state. The article analyzes the positions of American foreign policy elites and the expert community regarding the problem of the US self-positioning in the outside world. The article consists of three parts. The first analyses the main conceptual provisions of the “grand strategy” as a term. It describes its development from a military term, reflecting the general tactics in interstate confrontation to its comprehensive understanding as a coordination principle of long-term and medium-term goals with short term actions. The second part of the article focuses on the American foreign policy elites, their approaches, as well as public opinion on this issue. It is noted that the ideology of global leadership has become an important component of the establishment's thinking. It largely impedes the development of new foreign policy concepts and, as a result, reformatting the grand strategy. The third part is devoted to the positions of the expert community on the issue of grand strategy. Four main versions are considered: "Offensive", "Selective engagement", "Offshore Balancing", "Zero-sum". The author comes to a conclusion that the US foreign policy mixes several types of strategies at the moment. It is noted that as China strengthens, the United States faces a new competition, which, unlike the Soviet threat, implies not military-political, but economic confrontation. The implementation of the scenario of a "new Cold War" between Washington and Beijing can define the new goals of the grand strategy. At the same time, this also creates an ideological dilemma of recognizing a new challenge, an increasing alternative for American global leadership - the idea of which is still popular among representatives of American foreign policy elites.

scholarly journals Priorities and Implementation of US Foreign Policy by the D. Trump Administration

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-520
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Strategic Culture ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Policy Ideas ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trump Administration

The article analyzes the phenomenon of the foreign policy presidency of D. Trump. Based on the approach of neorealism theory to the analysis of foreign policy, it is pointed to the significance of four variables in implementing foreign policy: the peculiarities of the perception by the heads of foreign policy, the strategic culture of the United States, the relations between the state and the society, and the role of domestic state institutions. The author concludes that the Trump administration eliminated a number of obstacles to unilateral foreign policy, putting America first. Trump and his administration were able to coined and launch a significant number of political initiatives that were contrary to the established priorities of the US foreign policy, but not all of the declared intentions had been implemented. However, this does not mean that the administration of Joe Baden will radically revise the main foreign policy ideas of the previous administration.

15. US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Zhang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Open Door ◽  
Open Door Policy ◽  
The Korean War

This chapter examines US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. It first considers America’s rise as an major power and the introduction of the Open Door policy that became a major component of US policy during the period 1899–1941. It then shows how, with the conclusion of World War II, the United States achieved maritime hegemony in the Asia-Pacific and the historic policy of Open Door was rendered irrelevant by American preponderance. It also discusses the Korean War of 1950 and how it prompted the United States aggressively to apply the containment doctrine in Asia by establishing the so-called ‘hub-and-spokes’ bilateral alliance system; the outbreak of the Vietnam War; the Richard Nixon–Henry Kissinger opening to China in the early 1970s; and American foreign policy under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document