Arab perception of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. (c2010)

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nabil Khawaja
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 257-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirzad Azad

In spite of her troubled presidency at home and premature, ignominious exit from power, Park Geun-hye made serious attempts to bolster the main direction of the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) foreign policy toward the Middle East. A collaborative drive for accomplishing a new momentous boom was by and large a dominant and recurring theme in the Park government’s overall approach to the region. Park enjoyed both personal motivation as well as politico-economic justifications to push for such arduous yet potentially viable objective. Although the ROK’s yearning for a second boom in the Middle East was not ultimately accomplished under the Park presidency, nonetheless, the very aspiration played a crucial role in either rekindling or initiating policy measures in South Korea’s orientation toward different parts of a greater Middle East region, extending from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to Morocco.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad

The article discusses the features and main approaches of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. Particular attention is paid to the history of the development of Turkish-American relations. The causes of the contradictions between Turkey and the United States on the security issues of the Middle East region are analyzed. At the same time, the commonality of the approaches of both countries in countering radical terrorism in the territories adjacent to Turkey is noted. The article also discusses the priority areas of Turkish foreign policy, new approaches and technologies in the first decade of the XXI century.


Author(s):  
Ruth Hanau Santini

This paper looks at the qualitative change in the foreign policy discourse by the European Union towards the Middle East, as well as the EU’s overall degree of consistency between words and deeds. By looking at European Council Conclusions as well as General Affairs Council conclusions, it will be argued that on a discursive level the Union has taken stock of the emergence of new threats to its security, and has started shifting its attention from state failure and regional conflicts to the threats posed by terrorism and non-conventional proliferation. Secondly, by differentiating among three kinds of coherence, it will be shown that the main source of incoherence in the Union external action in the Middle East is not to be found in its institutional or horizontal dimensions, but in its vertical level, that is between the Union and member states. Examples will be provided in order to substantiate an overall claim: the EU security discourse might have changed; its policies however remain driven by the difficult balancing exercise between Brussels and national capitals.   Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.184


Author(s):  
Lisel Hintz

This chapter introduces the book’s aim of turning the concept of identity politics inside out. It presents Turkey as an empirical window onto these dynamics, familiarizing readers with puzzling shifts in domestic politics and foreign policy that do not correspond to shifts in geopolitical dynamics, international economic conditions, or the coming to power of a new party. For example, after the AKP made progress toward EU membership in its first term, the party’s subsequent terms witnessed a sharp reorientation of Turkey, a traditional Western ally, toward the Middle East. This period also demonstrates a rise in “Ottomania”—reviled until recently as delusions of imperial Islamic grandeur—which now permeates everything from pop culture to political campaigns. How was such a drastic reorientation of Turkey possible under the AKP? This introduction lays out how the book solves this puzzle by turning identity politics inside out and outlines the structure of the book.


The Great Game in West Asia examines the strategic competition between Iran and Turkey for power and influence in the South Caucasus. These neighboring Middle East powers have vied for supremacy throughout the region, while contending with ethnic heterogeneity within their own territories and across their borders. Turkey has long conceived of itself as not just a bridge between Asia and Europe but as a central player in regional and global affairs. Iran’s parallel ambitions for strategic centrality have only been masked by its own inarticulate foreign policy agendas and the repeated missteps of its revolutionary leaders. But both have sought to deepen their regional influence and power, and in the South Caucasus each has achieved a modicum of success. As much of the world’s attention has been diverted to conflicts near and far, a new ‘great game’ has been unravelling between Iran and Turkey in the South Caucasus.


Author(s):  
Daniel Deudney

The end of the Cold War left the USA as uncontested hegemon and shaper of the globalization and international order. Yet the international order has been unintentionally but repeatedly shaken by American interventionism and affronts to both allies and rivals. This is particularly the case in the Middle East as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the nuclear negotiations with Iran show. Therefore, the once unquestioned authority and power of the USA have been challenged at home as well as abroad. By bringing disorder rather than order to the world, US behavior in these conflicts has also caused domestic exhaustion and division. This, in turn, has led to a more restrained and as of late isolationist foreign policy from the USA, leaving the role as shaper of the international order increasingly to others.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document