GREATER EURASIA IN THE NEW POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REALITY

2021 ◽  
pp. 28-63
Author(s):  
Georgii Kutyrev
Keyword(s):  
Stress Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
The Us ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
The Face ◽  
Assertive Behavior ◽  
Economic Reality ◽  
Geographical Dimension

The COVID-19 pandemic has subjected international relations to a severe stress test - at the level of both individual states and multilateral associations. Among the obvious challenges are the economic crisis, the crisis of global governance, the growth of protectionist and isolationist sentiments, the growing military confrontation along the US-China axis. The article focuses on two important areas of integration of the Greater Eurasia project - in the field of defense and security and in the economic sphere in the context of the pandemic. The first part of the article examines the challenges associated with the defense and security sector of Greater Eurasia, using the example of military cooperation between China and Russia. It is concluded that by 2016, an «average» level of military interaction had been achieved in Russian-Chinese relations, which opens up opportunities for further integration. However, given that relations between the two great powers are built on the basis of respect for national interests and sovereign equality, further military integration of Russia and China is being questioned. It is noted that in the face of growing contradictions between the PRC and the United States, the pandemic contributed to a more self-confident and assertive behavior of Beijing in the foreign arena. The second part of the article examines the economic and geographical dimension of the integration of Greater Eurasia on the example of relations between the Russian Federation and the PRC in the trade and economic sphere. It is indicated that the absence of an agreement on an additional reduction in oil production between Saudi Arabia, Russia and other OPEC+ countries and the corresponding collapse of oil prices have a significant impact on the development of economic integration in Greater Eurasia. Scenarios for the further economic development of this regional international community after the pandemic are proposed.

scholarly journals National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented Population

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
Immigration Debate ◽  
Legal Immigration ◽  
Us Immigration

The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,1 the legal immigration system,2 and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation's economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.

A brief history of Pakistan–USSR bilateral relations 1947–1991

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (01) ◽  
pp. 171-181
Author(s):  
Muhammad Naveed Ul Hasan Shah ◽  
Muhammad Irfan Mahsud ◽  
Azadar Ali Hamza
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Western World ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
History Of ◽  
Soviet Invasion ◽  
The Persian Gulf

Pakistan, since 1947 remains under the umbrella of US, as a result, relations of Pakistan were not smooth with anti US states including USSR. The US was to increase its role in the region in order to make secure the largest petroleum reserves in the Persian Gulf. Pakistan’s alignment with the western world was mainly to counter possible Indian aggression, not to lessen the Soviet influence in the region, but the approach was more or less thwarting Soviet interests in the region. Over 3 million Afghan refugees had travelled to Pakistan in the 1st year of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The main objective of the USA during the initial stages of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was primarily to ensure that the Soviet exercise would be a costly one. The United States of America supported Afghan militants with the help of Pakistan to organize them against the USSR. A general perception is that US did not want to be directly involved to thwart the Soviet invasion; rather USA handed over the operational aspect of the program to the Pakistan. The Pakistan was in charge of providing the funds and weapons to the mujahedin and setting up training camps. The US remained indecisive over the next course of action in Afghanistan and the Pakistan took the opportunity to carry out its own agenda in Afghanistan to promote their national interests.

scholarly journals International Religious Freedom Promotion and US Foreign Policy

Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Marsden
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Right ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Politics And Religion ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Political Background

The freedom to practice one’s religious belief is a fundamental human right and yet, for millions of people around the world, this right is denied. Yearly reports produced by the US State Department, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Open Doors International, Aid to the Church in Need and Release International reveal a disturbing picture of increased religious persecution across much of the world conducted at individual, community and state level conducted by secular, religious, terrorist and state actors. While religious actors both contribute to persecution of those of other faiths and beliefs and are involved in peace and reconciliation initiatives, the acceptance of the freedom to practice one’s faith, to disseminate that faith and to change one’s faith and belief is fundamental to considerations of the intersection of peace, politics and religion. In this article, I examine the political background of the United States’ promotion of international religious freedom, and current progress on advancing this under the Trump administration. International Religious Freedom (IRF) is contentious, and seen by many as the advancement of US national interests by other means. This article argues that through an examination of the accomplishments and various critiques of the IRF programme it is possible, and desirable, to discover what works, and where further progress needs to be made, in order to enable people around the world to enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serhy Yekelchyk
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Political Conflict ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Political Crises ◽  
Contemporary Politics ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Media ◽  
The Face ◽  
Crony Capitalism ◽  
Us Presidential Election

Conventional wisdom dictates that Ukraine’s political crises can be traced to the linguistic differences and divided political loyalties that have long fractured the country. However, this theory obscures the true significance of Ukraine’s recent civic revolution and the conflict’s crucial international dimension. The 2013-14 Ukrainian revolution presented authoritarian powers in Russia with both a democratic and a geopolitical challenge. In reality, political conflict in Ukraine is reflective of global discord, stemming from differing views on state power, civil society, and democracy. Ukraine’s sudden prominence in American politics has compounded an already-widespread misunderstanding of what is actually happening in the nation. In the American media, Ukraine has come to signify an inherently corrupt place, rather than a real country struggling in the face of great challenges. Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know® is an updated edition of Serhy Yekelchyk’s 2015 publication, The Conflict in Ukraine. It addresses Ukraine’s relations with the West, particularly the United States, from the perspective of Ukrainians. The book explains how independent Ukraine fell victim to crony capitalism, how its people rebelled twice in the last two decades in the name of democracy and against corruption, and why Russia reacted so aggressively to the strivings of Ukrainians. Additionally, it looks at what we know about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, the factors behind the stunning electoral victory of the political novice Volodymyr Zelensky, and the ways in which the events leading to the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump have changed the Russia-Ukraine-US relationship. This volume is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the forces that have shaped contemporary politics in this increasingly important part of Europe, as well as the international background of the impeachment proceedings in the US

scholarly journals A Missed Partnership: Russia and the US at the Pacific

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-184
Author(s):  
D. V. Suslov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Asia Pacific Region ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Face ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
Favorable Conditions ◽  
Post Soviet Space

Both Russia and the United States consider the Asia-Pacific as the center of the world economy and politics and assume the active presence in the region crucial for their security and economic development. They did not have such sharp contradictions there as in Europe or in the post-Soviet space. Moreover, some of their interests in the Asia-Pacific Region coincide – such as preventing Chinese hegemony. In this regard, the Russian-American dialogue and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific could be an important pillar of the positive agenda of their relations and a factor in their sustainability. Due to foreign policy inertia, the inflexibility of the agenda of Russian-American relations and the inability of the parties to go beyond the usual pattern, such a dialogue has not even begun. Both sides demonstrated strategic myopia. This weakened the resilience of US-Russian relations in the face of new challenges and accelerated their deterioration and disruption to a new confrontation. The Asia-Pacific has become another theater of the US-Russian systemic confrontation. However, it is in the interest of bothRussia and the United States to separate relations in this region from their general confrontation. This will create favorable conditions for Russia to build a balanced partnership system in the Asia-Pacific, which is necessary to consolidate its role as an independent global great power. In addition, the Russian-American dialogue on the Asia-Pacific, or at least the weakening of their confrontation in this region, will reduce its polarization and prevent tensions between the US and its Asian allies and partners.

scholarly journals COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations averted by rapid vaccination rollout in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Moghadas ◽  
Pratha Sah ◽  
Meagan C Fitzpatrick ◽  
Affan Shoukat ◽  
Abhishek Pandey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Immune Escape ◽  
Vaccine Coverage ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Population Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Country Level ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Face ◽  
Alpha Variant

Importance: Randomized clinical trials have shown that the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved in the US are highly efficacious. However, more evidence is needed to understand the population-level impact of the US vaccination rollout in the face of the changing landscape of COVID-19 pandemic in the US, including variants with higher transmissibility and immune escape. Objective: To quantify the population-level impact of the US vaccination campaign in averting cases, hospitalizations and deaths from December 12, 2020 to June 28, 2021. Design: Age-stratified agent-based model which included transmission dynamics of the Alpha, Gamma and Delta variants in addition to the original Wuhan-1 variant. Setting: Our model was calibrated to COVID-19 outbreak and vaccine rollout in the US. Model predictions were made at the country level. Participants: Simulated age-stratified population representing US demographics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cases, hospitalizations and deaths averted by vaccination against COVID-19 in the US, compared to the counterfactuals of no vaccination and vaccination administered at half the actual pace. Results: The swift vaccine rollout in the US curbed a potential resurgence of cases in April 2021, which would have been otherwise fuelled by the Alpha variant. Compared to the scenario without vaccines, we estimated that the actual vaccination program averted more than 26 million cases, 1.2 million hospitalizations and saved 279,000 lives. A vaccination campaign with half the actual rollout rate would have led to an additional 460,000 hospitalizations and 121,000 deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US has had an extraordinary impact on reducing disease burden despite the emergence of highly transmissible variants. These findings highlight that the pace of vaccination was essential for mitigating COVID-19 in the US, and underscore the urgent need to close the vaccine coverage gaps in communities across the country.

GLOBAL EXPORT CONTROLS OF CYBER SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND THE DISRUPTED TRIANGULAR DIALOGUE

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-415
Author(s):  
Heejin Kim
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Export Control ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Policy Problem ◽  
Surveillance Technology ◽  
Central Platform ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Face

AbstractThe proliferation and abuse of cyber surveillance technology is a global policy problem. The Wassenaar Arrangement is a central platform of international cooperation for regulating dual-use goods and technologies and the so-called ‘cyber’ amendments to Wassenaar have created a multilateral control mechanism for the export of cyber surveillance technology. Following criticism of the repressive use of ICT-powered surveillance tools supplied by private companies in the early 2010s, Wassenaar States revised the Arrangement to regulate certain types of surveillance. This article begins by examining key features of the cyber amendments. Based on the analysis of recent export control law reforms in the three leading State actors in the production, sales and governance of cyber surveillance technology—namely the United States, China, and the European Union—the article identifies the diminishing importance of the Wassenaar Arrangement. It also shows how approaches in the three jurisdictions diverge not only from the terms of equivalent Wassenaar controls, but also from one another. They all aim to become a stronger and more autonomous entity in the regulation of cyber surveillance technology. In the face of escalating confrontation between the G2 concerning emerging technologies, it will be interesting to see how the EU's turn to a more human rights-centred approach to governing the export of cyber surveillance technology will be received by the US and Chinese governments in the long run and how it will interact with export control reforms designed with competing geopolitical, commercial and security agendas.

scholarly journals Oil in 20th century Brazil: Energy Dependence in the Second World War

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (65) ◽  
pp. 347-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natascha OTOYA
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
The United States ◽  
Oil Products ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
World War ◽  
Social Landscape ◽  
The Us ◽  
War Effort ◽  
The Face

Abstract In August 1942, Brazil joined the Allied Forces in World War II. Part of the agreement was that the United States would help develop heavy industries in the country, mainly steel and oil. By that time, roughly 90% of Brazil's oil was imported from the US, a fact that had a direct impact on the oil scenario of the country. The war effort meant that fuel was redirected to military use, which generated great restrictions to civilian consumption. In the face of scarcity, thousands of Brazilians wrote the National Petroleum Council to request fuel quotas and traffic licenses. In doing so, they also shared the reasons why they needed gasoline, diesel, kerosene and other oil products. Such letters provide valuable insight into the Brazilian social landscape of the period, how people used different oil products and the meanings of progress and modernity they attributed to the access and consumption of such products. It is a moment that marks the deep fossil dependence that underpins this ideal of modernity - connecting, in the same arc, human activity and creativity, the use of machines and fossil fuels, seen as indispensable to bring about the desired progress of a modern nation.

Consigned to hedge: south-east Asia and America's ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ strategy

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
See Seng Tan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asian ◽  
The United States ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Great Power ◽  
South East Asia ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Face

Abstract This article assesses how south-east Asian countries and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have responded to the ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ (FOIP) strategies promoted by the United States and the other countries in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the ‘Quad’: US, Japan, Australia and India). Their nuanced ripostes imply a persistent commitment to hedging and shifting limited alignments in the face of growing great rivalry and the lack of a clear FOIP vision among Quad members. In the face of external pressure to take sides, the ASEAN states are likely to keep hedging through working selectively with China and the United States. Given the United States' apparent preference to balance China and Trump's disregard for multilateralism, ASEAN's ability to maintain its centrality in the evolving regional architecture is in doubt—despite the Quad countries' (belated) accommodation of ASEAN in their FOIP strategies. However, the success of the US strategy depends on Washington's ability to build and sustain the requisite coalition to balance Beijing. ASEAN has undertaken efforts to enhance bilateral security collaboration with China and the United States respectively. In doing so, ASEAN is arguably seeking to informally redefine its centrality in an era of Great Power discord and its ramifications for multilateralism.

scholarly journals The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA): its implications for Australia-United States relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-53
Author(s):  
Johni Robert Verianto Korwa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Strategic Alliance ◽  
International System ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The Us

Australia is currently faced with a strategic and economic dilemma regarding its interactions with China and the United States (US). On the one hand, it should maintain and strengthen its strategic relations with the US as an ally in order to contain a rising China. On the other hand, Australia should ensure its economic growth by strengthening trade relations with China. This paper aims to examine the implications of the new China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) for the ANZUS strategic alliance. Through Qualitative Approach, this article analyzes the issues with the use of realist and liberal perspectives in international relations. By assessing two previous events involving the triangular Australia-US-China relationship (the case of the Taiwan conflict, and the US development of a National Missile Defense system), this paper concludes that ChAFTA may tend to undermine the ANZUS alliance. Three reasons for this conclusion are identified: a fundamental shift in the way Australia perceives China; ChAFTA offers more benefits to Australia than the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA); and finally Australia may consider ChAFTA as being more in its national interests in the international system than the ANZUS alliance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document