scholarly journals The Pragmatism of US Foreign Policy in the Obama and Trump Administrations.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-617
Author(s):  
Hema Niazi Hamad
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Perspective ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Important Position

       This researched has tried to analyze the philosophy of pragmatics and its development as well as applying it on the level of America’s foreign policy in the cabinet of both American Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump in a comparative way to analyze and investigate it.      The philosophy of Pragmatics in the center of American policy had an important position in the formulation of foreign policies and decisions and its application between Barack Obama and Donald Trump’s administration, was embodied in different forms and mechanisms which understanding this political perspective and direction is helpful to increase an understanding about formulation and application of American foreign policy.      It has been tried to answer the main question of the research within the context of this research, which is how did the main and clear difference of getting benefit from pragmatism between both Obama and Trump’s administration has reflected in the American foreign policy?        In the research, it was hypothesized that pragmatism was generally used in American foreign policy to protect America’s living interests and applying pragmatism between each Obama and Trump’s administration and how it is reflected in American foreign policy.     This research has reached the conclusion that pragmatism in the era of Barak Obama’s administration has embodied itself in the form of a clever and hidden soft Power that has not ignored actors and other parties in the international arena despite the desire to protect American interests. But in Donald Trump’s era, pragmatism has applied itself in the form of hard, obvious pragmatism, economic, and political interests of America, which was the main desire to protect America’s interests.

Reply to the Commentaries

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-95
Author(s):  
Christian Nuenlist ◽  
Anna Locher ◽  
Garret Martin
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charles De Gaulle ◽  
International Perspectives ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
French Foreign Policy ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
De Gaulle

Four distinguished analysts of French foreign policy under Charles de Gaulle provide in-depth assessments of the new book edited by Christian Nuenlist, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin, Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies, 1958–1969, published by Lexington Books. The commentators praise the book's wide scope and many of its essays and broad themes, but they raise questions about Garret Martin's contention (shared by a few, though not all, of the other contributors to the volume) that de Gaulle had a coherent if ultimately unsuccessful strategy to overcome the Cold War and move toward the unification of Germany and Europe. In article-length commentaries, both Andrew Moravcsik and Marc Trachtenberg take issue with Martin's view, arguing that de Gaulle's foreign policy involved more bluff and bluster than any genuine attempt to bring about the reunification of Germany or to end the Cold War. Moravcsik also provides a spirited defense of the “revisionist” conception of de Gaulle's policy toward Europe, which sees the general as having been guided mostly by his domestic economic and political interests—a conception that Trachtenberg has also come to accept. The forum ends with a reply by Nuenlist, Locher, and Martin to the four commentaries.

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.

Theorizing US Foreign Policy in a Postsecular World Society

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-54
Author(s):  
Gregorio Bettiza
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
World Society ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Sociological Approach ◽  
American Values ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Micro Level

The chapter presents the book’s theoretical framework, which is grounded in a sociological approach to international relations (IR) theory. It suggests that to explain the causes and shape of the operationalization of religion in US foreign policy attention needs to be paid to the combined effects of macro-level forces represented by the emergence of a postsecular world society, and the mobilization at the micro-level of a diverse range of desecularizing actors who seek to contest the secularity of American foreign policy through the deployment of multiple desecularizing discourses. The chapter then conceptualizes four different processes of foreign policy desecularization—institutional, epistemic, ideological, and state-normative—which take place as religion increasingly becomes an organized subject and object of US foreign policy. Finally, it advances three hypotheses about the global effects of America’s religious foreign policies: they shape religious landscapes around the world in ways that reflect American values and interests; they contribute to religionizing world politics; and they promote similar policies internationally.

Uncle Sam versus Uncle Usama

2018 ◽  
pp. 135-173
Author(s):  
Charles Kurzman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nobel Prize Winner ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Revolutionary Violence ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
Counterterrorism Policy

Shifts in American foreign policy have had little effect on Muslim attitudes toward the United States—even the shift from the administration of Barack Obama to that of Donald Trump barely changed Muslims’ survey responses or the prevalence of revolutionary violence. So why should the United States bother to take Muslim sensibilities into account? Following the lead of Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi and remarkable American humanitarians of the past century, this chapter proposes that the United States reorganize its counterterrorism policy around the interests of its liberal Muslim allies, rather than expose them to the dangers of militarism and authoritarianism.

22. The future of US foreign policy

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anatol Lieven
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Former Soviet Union ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Far East ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Transatlantic Relationship ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
East Russia

This chapter examines possible futures for American foreign policy in terms of the interests and ideology of the U.S. elites (and to a lesser extent the population at large), the structures of U.S. political life, and the real or perceived national interests of the United States. It first provides an overview of the ideological roots of U.S. foreign policy before discussing key contemporary challenges for U.S. foreign policy. In particular, it considers American relations with China, how to mobilize U.S. military power for foreign policy goals, and the issue of foreign aid. The chapter proceeds by analysing the most important features of America’s future foreign policies, focusing on the Middle East, the Far East, Russia and the former Soviet Union, and Europe and the transatlantic relationship. It concludes by describing some catastrophic scenarios that could accelerate the decline of US power.

6. Obama and smart power 1

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Nye
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Information Age ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
Global Information ◽  
Smart Power ◽  
Power Resources

This chapter examines Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda. The Obama administration referred to its foreign policy as ‘smart power’, which combines soft and hard power resources in different contexts. In sending additional troops to Afghanistan, his use of military force in support of a no-fly zone in Libya, and his use of sanctions against Iran, Obama showed that he was not afraid to use the hard components of smart power. The chapter first considers power in a global information age before discussing soft power in U.S. foreign policy. It then explains how public diplomacy came to be incorporated into American foreign policy and concludes by highlighting problems in wielding soft power.

A Paradigm Shift in American Foreign Policy

Worldview ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 42-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Petersen Spiro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Major Change ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
International Diplomacy ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

Human rights is at present a.much discussed issue in American foreign policy. What has not been discussed is the extent to which this represents a major change in American foreign policy. Consider: In 1974 the Secretary of State devoted exactly one sentence to human rights in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly. In 1975 there were four paragraphs of fairly standard rhetoric, apart from the proposal to establish a U.N. study to determine how widely torture was used as an officially sanctioned instrument of government. In addition there was an intimation of change in this sentence: "There is no longer any dispute that international human rights are on the agenda of international diplomacy." Yet there was then no evidence that Secretary Kissinger had changed the approach characterizing his tenure in office; nameiy, that American foreign policy cannot concern itself with the domestic policies of the governments with which it deals, even if they entail gross violations of human rights. We can, he insisted, only use private methods of persuasion and pressure. Foreign policy deals with the foreign policies of governments.

Charles de Gaulle and Europe: The New Revisionism

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Moravcsik
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charles De Gaulle ◽  
International Perspectives ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
French Foreign Policy ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
De Gaulle

Four distinguished analysts of French foreign policy under Charles de Gaulle provide in-depth assessments of the new book edited by Christian Nuenlist, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin, Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies, 1958–1969, published by Lexington Books. The commentators praise the book's wide scope and many of its essays and broad themes, but they raise questions about Garret Martin's contention (shared by a few, though not all, of the other contributors to the volume) that de Gaulle had a coherent if ultimately unsuccessful strategy to overcome the Cold War and move toward the unification of Germany and Europe. In article-length commentaries, both Andrew Moravcsik and Marc Trachtenberg take issue with Martin's view, arguing that de Gaulle's foreign policy involved more bluff and bluster than any genuine attempt to bring about the reunification of Germany or to end the Cold War. Moravcsik also provides a spirited defense of the “revisionist” conception of de Gaulle's policy toward Europe, which sees the general as having been guided mostly by his domestic economic and political interests—a conception that Trachtenberg has also come to accept. The forum ends with a reply by Nuenlist, Locher, and Martin to the four commentaries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document