Arab Intellectuals and the Bush Administration's Campaign for Democracy: The Case of the Greater Middle East Initiative

2007 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sami E. Baroudi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negative Image ◽  
Democratic Change ◽  
History Of ◽  
Formative Experiences

This article considers how Arab intellectuals represent the United States and American foreign policy in their editorial contributions to Arabic newspapers. As a case study, it examines Arab intellectuals' reactions to the George W. Bush Administration's campaign to effect democratic change in the Middle East, as articulated in the Administration's 2004 Greater Middle East Initiative (hereafter GMEI or Initiative). I argue that the predominantly hostile reactions to the GMEI stemmed mainly from a closed and negative image of the United States permeating Arab intellectual circles. This negative image is the product of the history of American policy towards the region and, equally important, of the beliefs, values, and formative experiences of Arab intellectuals. The article concludes by addressing ways to ameliorate this image.

Turkey’s foreign policy priorities in the Middle East and Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turkish Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
East Region ◽  
History Of ◽  
Middle East Region

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.

Know Thyself: What Is “Wilsonianism”?

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Tony Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
History Of

This introductory chapter provides an overview of Wilsonianism, which comprises a set of ideas called American liberal internationalism. More than a century after Woodrow Wilson became president of the United States, his country is still not certain how to understand the important legacy for the country's foreign policy of the tradition that bears his name. Wilsonianism remains a living ideology whose interpretation continues either to motivate, or to serve as a cover for, a broad range of American foreign policy decisions. However, if there is no consensus on what the tradition stands for, or, worse, if there is a consensus but its claims to be part of the tradition are not borne out by the history of Wilsonianism from Wilson's day until the late 1980s, then clearly a debate is in order to provide clarity and purpose to American thinking about world affairs today.

The Suez Crisis and the Containment Policy

1957 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-445
Author(s):  
M. A. Fitzsimons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Suez Crisis ◽  
Intractable Problems ◽  
Containment Policy

Since 1947 the major foreign policy of the United States government has been containment. This policy of creating situations of strength which would prevent the extension of Communist power and influence in the world was first proclaimed in the Truman Doctrine (March 12, 1947). The policy had been anticipated in 1946 when the battleship Missouri visited Turkey and some forty Mediterranean ports. In the course of this display the Missouri was joined by two aircraft carriers, seven cruisers, and eighteen destroyers. The early sensitivity to Soviet threats to the Middle East and its approaches, revealed in the Doctrine and that naval demonstration, was not consistently maintained at this time or later. Perhaps, indeed, American foreign policy only operates with fullest energy, when directly confronted with a serious Soviet threat. At any rate, it may be argued that for the period 1946–1955, when the Soviet Union was neither conspicuously active nor influential in the Middle East, United States policy contributed little to the solution or easing of the area's all but intractable problems. So to describe the problems is to propose a good excuse, but they were the problems, and, unfortunately, they did not wither from neglect or incantations.

Conclusion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Owen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Western History ◽  
The U.S

This book has examined ideological contests in Western history and what they tell us about Islamism's prolonged struggle with secularism. In conclusion, it offers a few suggestions on what the United States ought to do and not to do in the Middle East and what this means for American foreign policy. It argues that the United States simply cannot decide the contest between Islamism and secularism and so should resort to what political scientist Jonathan Monten calls “exemplarism.” The U.S. government should also remember that, although it cannot resolve the Muslims' ideological contest by force, it can influence how Muslims themselves resolve it. This concluding chapter also considers two things that the United States can do to nudge constitutional democracy: to engage in public diplomacy and to remain the attractive society that it always has been—to be true to itself.

scholarly journals The History of American Foreign Policy Thought: Debates about the US Sovereignty in the Late 20th – Early 21st Centuries

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Aleksei D. Katkov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cold War

In the 1990s the end of the Cold War and the US’s efforts to build a “new world order” actualized in scientific discourse the problem of understanding the principle of state sovereignty. Moreover, due to the WTO accession, the discussion among United States’ scholars intensified about the preservation of sovereignty of their own state. As a result, both the US authorities and most experts advocate the inviolability of the sovereignty of their country, noting, however, that it might be temporarily limited by different international obligations, first of all by economic agreements, but this does not affect it radically and the possibility of withdrawing from various kinds of contracts remains. At the same time, the last superpower’s foreign policy actions at the end of the 20th century (interference in the internal affairs of Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Yugoslavia, etc.) clearly illustrate the disregard for the sovereignty of other states. In an attempt to explain this policy, they argued that sovereignty, while remaining a significant principle in general, can be lost, which opens up the legitimate path to the internationalization of a conflict. All in all, despite the fact that such an understanding of sovereignty as a conditional principle, is not new in itself, the United States took some steps to extend this understanding to the whole world, granting itself the right to single-handedly determine cases where and why sovereign rights are lost.

American foreign policy and peace in the Middle East

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-296
Author(s):  
Abdel-Fattah Mady
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Palestinian Territories ◽  
Unfair Terms

The purpose of this study is to answer the following question: ‘Does US foreign policy undermine peace efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?’ Careful observations of US foreign policy during the Oslo Process reveal that the United States has indeed undermined peace efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The American position substantially departed from United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which the Palestinians were promised would serve as the basis for negotiations. Although the American–Israeli alliance underwent periodic adjustments, American foreign policy has, over the last decade, helped to create a framework in the Middle East wherein only Israeli needs have legitimacy. During the Oslo Process, the United States and Israel have tried to impose Israel's plans on the Palestinians, ignoring United Nations resolutions and the international community. The evidence reveals that US foreign policy was based on double standards and unfair terms. Further, the seeming link between the aid provided by the United States to Israel and the latter's aggressive policies toward the Palestinians makes it appear as though Washington is ‘rewarding’ such policies, that is, as if Washington is enabling Israel to deny Palestinians’ legitimate rights, violate United Nations resolutions and principles of international law, keep its military occupation forces, and expand Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

International interventions in non-democratic states between democratic change and achieving interests (Iraq as a case study after 2003)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omran Ali
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Middle East ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Democratic Change ◽  
The Cold War

This research seeks to critically analyze the international efforts, particularly the United States of America, in transforming authoritarian and non-democratic states into democratic ones, and clarify to what extent the US seeks to achieve real democratic change in non-democratic countries, especially Iraq, and whether their main goal is to achieve stability and their vital interests or democratic change and reform. It argues that although spreading democracy and human rights in the Middle East has become, especially after the end of the Cold War, one of the main goals of the US, but, in reality, the US is not ready to sacrifice its vital interests in the region at the expense of spreading democratic values, as well as reducing its strong security and economic relations with its non-democratic allies, or even applying the required pressure on them. Consequently, this increases doubts about the credibility and seriousness of the US in achieving its goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East in general, and Iraq in particular.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document