scholarly journals Shifting the US-Myanmar Relations under Trump Administration and its Geopolitical Implication

WIMAYA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (02) ◽  
pp. 48-56
Author(s):  
Thu Htet

This paper aims to analyze the shifts in the US-Myanmar relations during Trump administration compared to that of Obama administration, what factors affect such shifts, and how they posit important geopolitical implication. Under Trump administration, the US-Myanmar relations largely revolved around the Rohingya crisis, which shaped the relations between the two nations ‘substantially uncomfortable’. The factors affecting the changing relationship are the temporal dimension of Rohingya crisis, civil-military relations under NLD government, as well as Trump’s ‘American First’ foreign policy, which contributed to the declining of strategic engagement towards Indo-Pacific region where Myanmar is located. This caused an important geopolitical implication: the growing Chinese influence in Myanmar.

Twejer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 459-502
Author(s):  
NNawzad Abduallah Shukri ◽  

This study attempts to explain the US policy towards Syrian Kurds and highlight the key reasons behind establishing of military relations between Kurds and US. Further, it endeavors to explore the fact that why the US policy towards Syria Kurds is unstable and why Trump administration allowed Turkey to attack Kurdish autonomous region in Syria. In reality, the emergence of relations between Kurds and US backed to 2014, especially when ISIS controlled vast majority of Syria and Iraq territory and posed serious threat to the US security interests in Iraq and region. In this regards, the US saw the Kurdish forces as a trusted partner to confront ISIS in Syria. In particular, the Syrian armed groups did not want to fight ISIS and even some of them had relations with ISIS. However, despite the US military support to the Kurds, but politically US has a contradiction and unstable policy toward Kurds in Syria and it does not have any intention or agenda to support autonomous region or federal system for Kurds. This has been the key reasons behind Trump attempts to withdrawal its troops from Syria without taking into consideration the future of the Kurds there and allowed Turkey to attack Kurds. In fact, Turkey pressures, US willingness to withdrawal its troops form Middle East and defeating ISIS might push US to completely withdrawal all forces and abandon the Kurds in Syria.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-141
Author(s):  
Hasbi Aswar

A speech from the President of United States, Donald Trump, who explicitly state Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel triggering debate that threatens harmonization of the Middle East. Disagreement appear from South East Asia state up to European state regarding to Trump’s statement, which turn into United States foreign policy. Trump’s statement described as the main reason of increasing tension Palestinian – Israel conflict. This essay argues that The US policy toward Jerusalem was merely influenced by domestic politics in the sense that to satisfy Trump`s main voters of the Republican Party that is Evangelical Christian base.


Author(s):  
Feng Zhang ◽  
Richard Ned Lebow

This chapter examines the policy mistakes that the Obama administration made in managing the Sino-American relationship. The Obama administration developed no distinct China strategy and was in fact averse to developing such a strategy. It chose to embed largely reactive China policies within a regional strategy of the so-called “pivot” or “rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific region. While China was relegated to a management issue, the rebalance strategy damaged the US-China relationship by deepening strategic mistrust between the two countries and agitating China to seek strategic adventures in Asia. The rebalance did not cause Chinese assertiveness by itself, but the geopolitical setting it created served to exacerbate China’s already fermenting assertive inclinations and prompted its strategic adventurism.


Author(s):  
Timothy Doyle ◽  
Dennis Rumley

In this chapter we argue that, in the Indo-Pacific region since the ‘end’ of the ‘old’ Cold War, there has been a process of political and economic competition among regional great powers for influence over Indo-Pacific core middle powers. One of the essential aims of this process is to create a regional middle power coalition in opposition to either China or the US, one of the elements of the new Cold War. As a result, the foreign policies of US-co-opted states will exhibit a shift in emphasis towards support for the US pivot and an expression of a greater foreign policy interest than heretofore in the Indo-Pacific region, following the US. The result is that an Indo-Pacific self-identification and an ‘Indo-Pacific narrative’ become important components of the foreign policy rhetoric and debate of US-co-opted states.


Author(s):  
Kai Michael Kenkel

Latin American states have become major providers of troops for UN peacekeeping operations (PKOs) since the early 2000s. MINUSTAH (Mission des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en Haïti), the UN mission in Haiti, 55% of whose troops were from the region, was a major watershed for local security cooperation and PKO contributions. Led by Brazil, these states were able to develop a specific approach to peacebuilding that reflects regional strengths and experiences, rooted in minimizing the use of force and bringing successful domestic development policies to bear abroad. This approach also reflects the common security and intervention culture that underpins policy in the region. Two states in particular have taken on a role as major providers of peacekeeping contingents. Tiny Uruguay, with a population of 3 million people, has maintained over 2,000 troops deployed on UN PKOs (more than 10% of its armed forces) since 2005. While Uruguay’s motivations are mostly economic—UN reimbursements exceed the country’s costs—Brazil’s ascendance as a major peacekeeping provider during MINUSTAH was part of a larger emerging-power foreign policy project. Participating in peacebuilding allowed the country to provide security through actions in the development realm, bridging a key gap in many rising states’ capabilities, and to mount an incipient challenge to the Western-led peacebuilding paradigm. The remaining states of Latin America show considerable diversity in their peacekeeping engagement, with many others sending small or token contributions and some no troops at all. Latin American states’ involvement in PKOs cannot be understood without looking at their interaction with patterns of civil–military relations in the region. In the case of such states, the effect of peacekeeping participation on civil–military relations, while a key point in need of monitoring, has not been decisive, as other factors prevail. Finally, PKOs have served as the locus for a significant increase in policy coordination and cooperation in the defense arena in the region. As the UN moves toward stabilization operations which privilege counterterrorism measures over the peacebuilding paradigm that is a strength of Latin American countries, PKOs may lose attractiveness as a foreign policy avenue in the region. Additionally, the swing to the right in recent elections may serve to reduce the appeal of a practice which came to the fore under previous left-wing governments.


Author(s):  
Julian Gonzalez-Guyer

During the last quarter of a century, Uruguay has contributed more to UN peacekeeping operations than any other South American nation and was one of the top twenty countries in the ranking of the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) between 2001 and 2016. This is striking when one bears in mind that Uruguay’s population is less than 3.5 million and that the size of its armed forces has been steadily reduced since 1985. With these credentials, Uruguay secured a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council between 2016 and 2017, a position it had only previously held between 1965 and 1966. Contributing to peace operations has been a novelty in Uruguay’s foreign policy in the post-dictatorship era, though without breaking with the traditional principles of its foreign policy and strategic identity. Indeed, multilateralism and an adherence to the principles of non-intervention and negotiated conflict resolution have been consistent elements of Uruguayan foreign policy since the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, the motivations for Uruguay’s striking level of commitment to the UN peace operations are mainly linked to the evolution of civil–military relations after the dictatorship of 1973–1985.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang

The Obama administration perceives the Asia-Pacific as a vital and dynamic region and thus prioritized it in its foreign policy agenda. Some scholars have suggested that the Obama administration’s rebalance towards Asia has taken a realist approach to engagement with the Asia-Pacific while others suggested that it deviated significantly from realism. This article seeks to examine more closely the question of the realist nature of the US rebalance policy towards the Asia-Pacific. It begins with a discussion of views of the Obama administration’s rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific before giving an overview of realism. Then, it seeks to establish a realist model of foreign policy and examine the Obama administration’s rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific against that model. It finds that the Obama administration has high scores on two of the indicators of realism—the emphasis on military capabilities and the emphasis on alliance-building—but has lower scores on the third and the fourth—a low regard for multilateral institutions, and a low regard for values. The Obama administration has actively engaged with regional institutions and has strongly supported the spread of democracy and human dignity all over the Asia-Pacific. Hence, the Obama administration’s rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific is a realist foreign policy with certain modifications.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-520

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.


Unity Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 120-125
Author(s):  
Pragya Ghimire

Military diplomacy has been an important security and foreign policy tool for many centuries. However, in the age of globalization, its importance has grown more rapidly than ever because of the recognition that country’s survival and development also depend on a peaceful and stable national and regional environment. Some of the significant practices in the past reflect that various tools of military diplomacy could be implemented to strengthen country’s overall diplomacy, including bilateral and multi-lateral contacts of military and civilian defence officials of foreign countries; preparing bilateral/multilateral security and defence agreements; exchanging experience with foreign military and civilian defence officials; providing military assistance and support to other countries, such as aid, materials and equipment when there is need and request during the disaster or humanitarian crises. However, these tools of strengthening military diplomacy will not be as effective as expected if there is no effective civil-military relations and synergies between a country’s national security and foreign policy. Moreover, it will require strong expertise and good command of civilian diplomats on security issues and military diplomats on foreign policy issues. To strengthen its military diplomacy to contribute to Nepal’s overall diplomacy and foreign policy, it will require more military attaché in Nepal foreign diplomatic missions of vital security and development interest. Moreover, Nepal should continue building synergies between its national security, foreign and development policies as well as strengthening military diplomacy both at bilateral and regional levels.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document