scholarly journals Babel Syndrome and the New Security Doctrine of the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-45
Author(s):  
José Luís Fiori

This article explores the significance to the inter-state capitalist system of the new US national security strategy, as defined by the Donald Trump administration on 17 December 2017. By looking beyond the inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies of President Trump, we see that this strategy represents a break, not only with the strategies of recent US administrations but also with a longer tradition in US foreign policy. This article proposes that the supposed crisis of ‘liberal order’ is a direct and inevitable result of the expansion and success of the inter-state capitalist system. To explain the strategy of the US in this scenario, the article adopts an unorthodox approach, analysing the myth of the Tower of Babel.

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kgothatso Brucely Shai ◽  
Tholene Sodi ◽  
Rachidi R. Molapo

This qualitative article employs an Afrocentric perspective as an alternative theoretical and/or contextual lens to provide an overview of the national security challenges facing the United States of America (US) within the context of its engagement in Africa. It also demonstrates the reactions of the US to African security threats (real or imagined) to its national well-being. At the centre of the discussion of this article is the articulation of the main issues about the US National Security Strategy in relation to Africa. The objective is to unravel the myth that Africa is a threat to the US national security and the reality about its dismissed importance to US within the context of the current global discourse on security. In order to provide a wider context for understanding the security dimension of the US foreign policy as it relates to Africa and to foster epistemic justice, it is important to address this subject from the viewpoint of Africans and others whose fate is tied to this continent.  


Asian Survey ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-20
Author(s):  
Robert Sutter

Early Trump administration initiatives upset regional stability, complicating the foreign policies of Asian partners and opponents alike. Subsequent pragmatic summitry eased regional anxiety and clarified the new government’s security and political objectives. The administration’s national security strategy, released in December, provided a well-integrated security, economic, and diplomatic strategy for Asia and the rest of the world.


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.


Author(s):  
N. P. Gribin

Under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, the President of the United States must submit to Congress each year a report on the national security strategy. This report under the name of “National Security Strategy” is intended to be a comprehensive statement anticipating the worldwide interests, goals and objectives that are deemed crucial to the national security of the United States. The new “National Security Strategy” (December 2017) lays out the strategic vision of the Presidential Administration under Donald Trump about ways and means by which the US seeks to deal with internal and external threats. The authors of the Strategy set themselves the main task of proving that American security is based on the realization that American principles are: “a lasting force for good in the World.”  The authors of the Strategy prioritize the protection of the American way of life and American interests all over the world. In that aspect, they see the main danger from the hostile states and non-states actors who are “trying to acquire different types of weapons”. In addition, the administration is demonstrating concerns about the activity of international terrorist organizations (jihadist), transnational criminal organizations, drug cartels and cybercrime. Different from previous similar documents, Trump’s Strategy makes an evident accent on economic security as an important part of national security. The task in that area is “to rebuild economic strength at home and preserve a fair and reciprocal international system.” In a rather confronting manner, the Strategy assesses the role of China and Russia in the international affairs. It underlines that between the main sets of challengers – “the revisionist powers of China and Russia and the rogue states of Iran and North Korea”, the United States will seek areas of cooperation with competitors but will do so from a position of strength. The Strategy pays great attention to restoring military capability of the US. It is stressed that military strength remains a vital component of the competition for influence. In a certain sense, the authors of the Strategy demonstrate a new approach to the role of diplomacy, and especially in regards to the tools of economic diplomacy, intended to protect the US “from abuse by illicit actors”. Pillar four of the Strategy outlines considerations for expanding US influence on a global scale and for supporting friendly partners. As stated in the Strategy, American assistance to developing countries should help promote national interests and vice versa. The US will use all means, including sanctions, to “isolate states and leaders that pose a threat to the American interests.” The Strategy pays much attention to the regional aspect of national security, and, from these positions, the situation in various parts of the world (the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, the Middle East, etc.) is assessed. The authors emphasize that changes in the balance of power at the world level can cause global consequences and threaten American interests and US security. On the contrary, “stability reduces the threats that Americans face at home.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (04) ◽  
pp. 19-27
Author(s):  
Weixing CHEN

The rise of China has shaken, to some extent, the pillars sustaining the US dominance in the world. Facing structural challenges from China, the United States has responded on three levels: political, strategic and policy. The Donald Trump administration has adopted a hard-line approach while attempting to engage China at the structural level. The China–US relationship is entering uncertain times, and the reconstruction of the relationship could take a decade.


Elements ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Scullin

The Bush Doctrine, formally known as the United States National Security Strategy 2002, reorients United States foreign and domestic security policy to reocgnize the increasing threat of terroristic warfare. The doctrine mandates taking any action deemed necessary for American security, maintaining the option for preventative, unilateral war. This paper will explore the doctrine's impact on US foreign policy as well as its shortcomings as a component of international law. It concludes that a shift in foreign policy is necessary to improve the doctrine's effectiveness.


2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 474-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Ettinger

Donald Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) promises to put “America first.” However, it is only a partial break from convention, and evinces a deep current of incoherence in Trump’s foreign policy. The NSS attempts to combine two incompatible worldviews into a single doctrine: the president’s “America First” nationalism and the seventy-year-old internationalist consensus among the US foreign policy establishment. Not only does it betray strategic dissonance, it portends an impossible working relationship between Trump’s insurgent nationalism and the traditionalism of the US foreign policy bureaucracy.


2020 ◽  
pp. 658-667
Author(s):  
Olha Kravchenko

The article describes and analyses the policy of the Trump administration towards Ukraine. Traditionally, the election of a new US President has some impact on the Washington’s position on Ukrainian issues, and the end of the presidential tenure serves as a reason to take stock of the results. Donald Trump’s presidency has not been marked by profound changes in the US foreign policy towards Ukraine, as it was inertially in line, for the most part, with the previous years. The American political establishment primarily views Ukraine through the prism of the security paradigm as a bulwark of deterring its global opponents, particularly Russia. Thus, the article deals with the challenges and prospects of the modern US policy towards Ukraine. The priorities of the US foreign policy towards Ukraine traditionally consist of the issues enshrined in the 2008 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. The article focuses on defence, security, and energy cooperation. In this regard, the United States remains the major guarantor of the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. In deterring the Russian aggression, the Trump administration generally follows the approach of the imposition of economic sanctions, launched during the presidency of Barack Obama. It is important to stress that the United States focuses not only on the problem of the armed conflict in Donbas but also on the attempted illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. At the same time, the focus on security issues has its negative repercussions, as it leads to certain limitations in bilateral relations, as evidenced by the lack of large-scale joint projects and weak trade and economic cooperation that impacts Ukraine’s position in the US foreign policy priorities. In the meantime, regardless of the name of the future US President, Washington’s support for Ukraine will be maintained. The close involvement of the United States in the negotiation process for the settlement of the conflict in Donbas and de-occupation of Crimea would significantly influence the course of events, but it is difficult to predict whether this prospect will become a reality. Keywords: US foreign policy towards Ukraine, Trump administration, strategic partnership, U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations, process of impeachment.


Subject Government intervention in foreign inward and outward investments and mergers. Significance The Trump administration is increasingly moving to control undesired foreign investments, as the March 12 presidential order blocking overseas-based Broadcom from merging with US-based Qualcomm showed. President Donald Trump was working on advice from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Since 1990, there have been only five cases where presidents have blocked mergers; two of these have been under Trump since his inauguration in January 2017. Impacts Foreign firms will face constraints on accessing US intellectual property and tech patents. Trump will impose new visa requirements for Chinese nationals working and studying in the United States. US vetoes of foreign investment and mergers could see other countries respond in the same way. The Broadcom-Qualcomm veto should help the US semiconductors industry maintain a global role in 5G technology. Foreign firms may sidestep the CFIUS by incorporating in the United States, as Broadcom hopes to do next month.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jomana Amara ◽  
Raymond E. Franck

The United States defence economy is remarkable for a number of reasons - including sheer size. It receives a significant (albeit decreasing) share of GDP and has a significant international footprint. Its purpose is to provide the resources for national defence - against a set of complex and capable adversaries. The main players in the defence economy are households, and the Federal Government. The associated interactions determine the resources provided for national defence and their allocation among various defence needs. This Element focuses primarily on interactions between government and industrial suppliers within the institutional peculiarities of the defence marketplace. This includes the developments that have determined the course of defence industry consolidation post-Cold War. The authors also highlight the persistent gap between resources available for defence and the means to execute the National Security Strategy. Finally, they offer some tentative thoughts regarding developments likely to shape the defence economy's future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document