scholarly journals HUMAN RIGHTS AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Author(s):  
Johann Spies

American involvement in the international arena vacillates and shifts at a fast pace. Since the terrorist attacks on US soil in 2001, the Bush administration has aggressively returned the US to internationalism. The American interaction on the international stage has always been unique. Currently, as the only true superpower in the international system, the effect of US foreign policy on the global human rights regime is likely to be greater than at any other time in their history. The significant question, then, is to the position, if at all, of human rights concerns within US foreign policy. Ruggie states that international regimes which are closer to a superpower's core security interests will necessarily be stronger than those further away. One may then suppose that regimes which are dominant in the foreign policy of a superpower will be stronger than those less dominant. This article analyses the position of human rights within the current administration in the US in order to determine if US foreign policy concerns itself at all with these issues when making policy decisions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
E. V. Kryzhko ◽  
P. I. Pashkovsky

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.


Author(s):  
Richard Saull

This chapter examines US foreign policy during the Cold War, beginning with an overview of the main historical developments in US policy. It first considers the origins of the Cold War and containment, focusing on the breakdown of the wartime alliance between the United States and the USSR, the emergence of US–Soviet diplomatic hostility and geopolitical confrontation, and how the Cold War spread beyond Europe. It then explains how the communist revolution in China in 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 propelled the US towards a much bolder and more ambitious containment policy. It also looks at US military interventions in the third world, the US role in the ending of the Cold War, and the geopolitical, ideational, and/or socio-economic factors that influenced American foreign policy during the Cold War. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the dual concerns of US foreign policy.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-351
Author(s):  
Matheus de Carvalho Hernandez

A II Conferência Mundial para os Direitos Humanos da ONU, conhecida como Conferência de Viena, realizada em 1993, foi objeto de estudo da literatura de Relações Internacionais durante os anos noventa principalmente, inclusive no Brasil, devido à destacada participação da delegação brasileira. Entretanto, há ainda uma carência na área em relação à análise da importante participação dos Estados Unidos nesse evento da ONU. Sendo assim, o objetivo deste artigo é tentar contribuir no sentido de suprir essa lacuna, isto é, tentar compreender melhor a participação dos EUA – assim como suas motivações e contradições no que tange à política externa – nesse que foi o mais importante evento internacional em matéria de direitos humanos no pós-Guerra Fria. A hipótese aqui discutida é que a participação destacada dos EUA na referida Conferência seria resultado de dois fatores associados: um impulso inicial favorável aos direitos humanos, incitado pela necessidade do recém eleito Bill Clinton demonstrar relativa coerência com suas críticas às posturas de seu antecessor em matéria de direitos humanos; e a formação inicial de uma equipe de governo ligada à temática dos direitos humanos. Por outro lado, a análise da participação dos EUA em Viena diante do foco de Clinton nas questões econômicas domésticas e em comparação com outras ações de política externa parece demonstrar a permanência da ambivalência da política externa de direitos humanos dos EUA, resultando no que se designa como dupla padronização. The Second World Conference on Human Rights, known as the Vienna Conference, held in 1993, was studied by the literature of International Relations especially during the 1990s, including in Brazil, due to the outstanding participation of the Brazilian delegation. However, there is a lack of studies about the significant participation of the U.S. in the meeting. Thus, the aim of this article is to contribute towards filling this gap, in other words, to better understand the American involvement – as well as their motivations and contradictions regarding foreign policy – in this event, considered the most important international human rights event in the post-Cold War era. The hypothesis here is that the U.S. outstanding participation in the Conference would be the outcome of two linked factors: an initial push to favor human rights incited by the need of the newly elected Bill Clinton to demonstrate coherence with his criticism on the former administration's acts in the human rights field; and the initial composition of a government staff closer to human rights issues. On the other hand, the analysis of U.S. active involvement in Vienna - in contrast to the focus of Clinton on domestic and economic issues and compared to other foreign policy actions - seems to point to the continuing ambivalence of human rights foreign policy of the U.S., thus resulting in what is designated as double-standard.


Author(s):  
S. Kislitsyn

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawaz A. Gerges

American foreign policy does not seem to have undergone radical changes in its position towards Islamists. Instead, Islamists seem to display willingness to make a transition and cater for vital American interests in the Arab world - mainly with regard to the following four points: political economy; relations with Israel; the War on Terror; and issues related to identity, especially in the case of minorities. Islamists appear to have proven malleability towards the US in relation to the economic system and foreign policy. Some Islamist leaders have pointed out that the price of this adaptability is expected to be the respect of the US for Islamic ethos, added to the Islamists' autonomy on domestic, social and cultural issues. In conclusion, the relationship between Islamists and the US seems to be in the course of being shaped, but meanwhile, Islamists seem to adopt a realist stand on American foreign policy and national security whereby they do not seem to have quit the approaches of those regimes that have just gone.


2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inderjeet Parmar

AbstractThe American aggression in Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan resulted from the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US. 9/11 has had a massive, catalysing effect on the American public, press, main political parties and official foreign policy makers. This article assesses the impact of 9/11 in changing US foreign policy and especially in creating a new foreign policy establishment by comparing it to the consequences of an historical military attack on the United States – Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941. It concludes that there is adequate evidence to suggest that a new bipartisan foreign policy consensus/establishment has emerged.


2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-202
Author(s):  
Jon Stephenson

Review of The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, by Robert Fisk Since 9/11 and the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, British journalist Robert Fisk has built a huge following as a staunch critic of George W. Bush’s ‘war on terror’. But Fisk’s cogent—often controversial—analysis of American foreign policy and Western meddling and mendacity in the Middle East is nothing new: based in Beirut, he has reported for 30 years on conflicts from Algeria to Afghanistan.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2/2021) ◽  
pp. 175-200
Author(s):  
Milan Krstic

Many analysts expected a radical change in President Joseph Biden’s foreign policy compared to the foreign policy of previous President Donald Trump. A year after his electoral victory, opinions about how much Biden actually changed in the US foreign policy vary from those who see it as a revolutionary change to those who perceive it as a difference only in tone and continuity in the majority of crucial policy aspects. This paper aims to contribute to this debate by addressing the issues of continuity and changes in the new administration foreign policy towards the Western Balkans. Although many expected that Biden’s policy to the region would be much more similar to President Barrack Obama’s or even President Bill Clinton’s approach, this paper claims that the new administration has a lot in common with the course of the previous President Donald Trump. There are also some changes and modifications, but they seem to be less crucial than the elements of continuity that exist between Biden’s and Trump’s administrations’ foreign policy towards this region. The paper also addresses the causes of this continuity and claims that the main reason for that are structural factors on the level of the international system. However, some reasons for the continuity are also on the state (internal) and individual levels of analysis.


2018 ◽  
pp. 39-48
Author(s):  
Miron LAKOMY

French-American relations certainly are among the most complex and at the same time most controversial in French foreign policy. The main factors that determine the nature of relations between France and the US include culture. A few features can be pointed out here to demonstrate their unique nature. Firstly, the importance of anti-American sentiments and Francophobia (anti-French sentiments) should be emphasized. The roots of these broadly shared attitudes may be sought both in the past (the experiences ofWWIand WWII) as well as in the present political relations between the two countries. The French nation is generally critical of American foreign policy, the US social and economic system. In the USA, in turn, we come across a similar attitude of Francophobia. This mainly stems from the commonly shared image of France as a difficult, chaotic and unpredictable ally. While anti-American sentiments and Francophobia do not translate into political decisions made either in Washington or Paris, they still influence the atmosphere of mutual relations, as became apparent when American restaurant owners boycotted French wines during the Iraqi crisis. At the same time, though, both nations recognize each other’s achievements in such fields as culture, art or human rights. Secondly, the “conflict of universalism” described by Stanley Hoffman is worth noting. As both countries deem themselves to be the cradle of such universal values as liberty, equality, justice and human rights, they both assign themselves with a unique status among other countries. It is true that the repertoire of values France and the US represent is nearly identical, yet they are frequently understood differently on both sides of the Atlantic. Thirdly, the French-American relations are also profoundly influenced by the common French belief in France being an exceptional and powerful country. The national perspective and the manifestation of France’s privileged position in the international arena are to a significant degree present in their relations with the US. Ezra Suleiman, among others, observed that the French political elite were allergic to any forms of political, economic or cultural domination. Other issues that influence the state of French-American relations concern differences in the economic or social system, or the role of religion in the life of the state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document