Containing Challenges

Author(s):  
Michael F. Hopkins

This chapter examines the place of foreign policy issues in national debates on the eve of the 1948 election. It profiles the four candidates (Harry Truman, Thomas Dewey, Henry Wallace, and Strom Thurmond), considers the role of foreign affairs during the campaign and their significance in determining the election result, and analyses the impact of Truman’s victory on US foreign policy. It argues that international affairs and their domestic consequences (anxieties about Communist influence especially) were very important in 1948. During the campaign, Truman effectively exploited his leadership in foreign policy. His resolute position on the Berlin blockade was part of a bipartisan foreign policy. So Dewey could hardly criticize the policy and gained little from its popularity. The main impact of the election was the consolidation of Truman’s policy of containment.

Slavic Review ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 614-630
Author(s):  
Jan S. Adams

Historically, leaders of the Soviet Union have shown extraordinary faith in the power of bureaucratic reorganization to solve political problems. The 1985-1987 restaffing and restructuring of the foreign policy establishment indicate that Mikhail Gorbachev shares this faith. In the first sixteen months of his leadership, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs replaced its minister, two first deputy ministers, seven deputy ministers, a third of all Soviet ambassadors, and created four new departments. In addition, important changes were made in the central party apparat, affecting three of the CPSU Central Committee departments: The International Information Department was abolished. The Propaganda Department gained added prominence in international affairs with the appointment of a new chief, Aleksandr Iakovlev, who began playing a conspicuous role as Gorbachev's advisor at international conferences even before his elevation to the Politburo in January 1987. Of great significance for the Soviet foreign policy establishment as a whole, the International Department (ID) was given new leadership, a new arms control unit, and expanded missions.


Author(s):  
Piers Robinson

This chapter examines the academic debates over the relationship between US public opinion, media, and foreign policy. It first considers the nature of US media and public opinion, including democratic expectations of mass media and public opinion, before discussing pluralist and elite approaches to understanding the links between media, public opinion, and foreign policy. It then explores the role of propaganda and persuasion with respect to US power projection, with particular emphasis on the ways in which public opinion and media can be understood as a source of power for — and as a constraint upon — US foreign policy. It also reviews contemporary debates regarding the impact of technological developments, such as the emergence of global media like the internet and social media, upon US power and influence.


2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic Kelly

AbstractThis article examines the impact on Japan's political economy and foreign policy of its lack of natural resources. Applying the concept of Japan as a ‘reactive’ state to linked case studies of rice, oil and atomic power it explores aspects of the relationship between culture, institutions and political processes in domestic politics and foreign policy. In so doing it argues that Japan's poor resource endowments have driven it to engage (re)actively – and often unwisely – in international affairs, an engagement both facilitated and constrained by its close alliance with the United States. This mediated engagement will continue into the foreseeable future.


Contrary to other liberal democracies in the world, the foreign policy in US is made in a very clumsy way. The constitution of USA has put the president and congress into constant tug of war over the issue of making US’s foreign policy. Constitutionally, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the bureaucracy, the President, the Congress, media and public opinion are given special role to frame the US foreign policy. The Constitution has built a bulwark against the despotic and tyrannical tendencies against any of these stakeholders. Apart from the compulsory role of all the said departments, much space is given to some external factors like UN, International law, NATO and the special interests of other US business and strategic partners to put pressure at numerous dimensions and aspects on US foreign policy mechanism. Consequently, it is difficult to figure out the more efficient stake holders involved in foreign policy formulation process in USA


This book explores the relationship between American presidential elections and US foreign policy. It argues that analysis of this relationship is currently underdeveloped (indeed, largely ignored) in the academic literature and among historians in particular and is part of a broader negligence of the influence of US politics and the public on foreign policy. It is usually taken as being axiomatic that domestic factors, especially the economy, are the most influential when people enter the voting booth. This may often be the case, but foreign policy undoubtedly also plays an important part for some people, and, crucially, it is seen to do so by presidential candidates and their advisers. Therefore, while foreign policy issues influence some voters in the way they choose to vote, the perception that voters care about certain foreign policy issues can also have a profound effect on the way in which presidents craft their foreign policies. Although we agree with those scholars who argue that it is difficult to discern the impact of domestic politics on foreign policy making, this complex relationship is one that, we feel, requires further exploration. This collection therefore seeks to understand the relative importance of US foreign policy on domestic elections and electoral positions and the impact of electoral issues on the formation of foreign policy.


2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Francis Fukuyama

Professor Fukuyama, B.A. Classics, Cornell University 1974, spoke at Cornell on April 21, 2008, at the invitation of the Einaudi Center for International Studies. The Board of the Cornell International Affairs Review had the privilege of meeting with him during his visit. The following article, produced here with his permission, is an edited transcript of this talk. The board of the Cornell International Affairs Review thanks Professor Fukuyama for his support to our mission.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jenichen

AbstractIt is a common—often stereotypical—presumption that Europe is secular and America religious. Differences in international religious freedom and religious engagement policies on both sides of the Atlantic seem to confirm this “cliché.” This article argues that to understand why it has been easier for American supporters to institutionalize these policies than for advocates in the EU, it is important to consider the discursive structures of EU and US foreign policies, which enable and constrain political language and behavior. Based on the analysis of foreign policy documents, produced by the EU and the United States in their relationship with six religiously diverse African and Asian states, the article compares how both international actors represent religion in their foreign affairs. The analysis reveals similarities in the relatively low importance that they attribute to religion and major differences in how they represent the contribution of religion to creating and solving problems in other states. In sum, the foreign policies of both international actors are based on a secular discursive structure, but that of the United States is much more accommodative toward religion, including Islam, than that of the EU.


2013 ◽  
Vol 05 (03) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
Lance L P GORE

The new foreign policy team is more professional and with an Asian focus than its older counterpart. Although still fragmented, it may have stronger leadership and better coordination. This is critically important because China is at a defining moment as to its international role. Xi Jinping's closer ties with the military and his hands-on style may encourage assertive nationalism and more active role of the military in foreign affairs.


Author(s):  
N. Lapina

This article deals with the impact of various factors on the perception of Russia in different European countries. The focus is on the role of mass media, expert and political elites in forming of Russia's image, especially in the context of Ukrainian crisis. In this article, the reaction of different European counties to events in Ukraine, the polarization of European space is analyzed: some countries prefer to put a pressure on the Russian Federation, other – to find a way out of the critical situation and reach a compromise. Some political establishment representatives in France, Germany, Czech Republic support Russia and the reunification with Crimea, dispute sanctions against Russia. For such politicians, this support results from anti-American views and independent foreign policy aspirations. Other representatives of the European elite demand tougher approach and more pressure on Russia by any means whatsoever (including military ones). European business-communities reveal great interest in solving issues related to sanctions. Many entrepreneurs in Europe (in particular major corporations in France, UK, Germany, Italy), who profit from long and fruitful cooperation with Russia, are against anti-Russian sanctions. In view of the Ukrainian crisis, Russia has to face and solve various important issues. How can Russia implement a modernization project after burning all traditional bridges to the West and western friends and partners? What is the right way for Russian foreign policy to support and defend Russian-speaking people all over the world? Which European political forces can provide support to Russia? How can civil society affect and influence cooperation between Russia and Europe?


2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROGÉRIO DE SOUZA FARIAS ◽  
HAROLDO RAMANZINI JÚNIOR

Abstract This article presents the increasing demands over the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty) for opening its doors to other actors. This discussion will be followed by relevant theoretical and methodological analysis. We will defend the need to overcome problems related to: 1) conceptual vagueness about what the concept of participation means; 2) lack of clarity in the baseline to which comparisons are made; 3) fragile empirical basis; 4) limitations on the use of sources; and 5) how to understand the impact exerted by systemic forces.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document