Unilateral vs. Multilateral Approaches in US Foreign Policy: A Case Study of Iraq and Afghanistan War

During the Iraq and Afghanistan war, the Bush administration vindicated its pre-emptive military strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan on the grounds of national security. The strike was carried out under the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy which asserts the right of the U.S to take unilateral military action against rogue states and terrorist organizations in order to prevent or to reduce an assumed attack by such groups or organizations against the United States. However, the action by the administration has been widely criticized as not being in conformity with international law, and United Nations’ Security Council resolutions. It has been investigated in this research paper that the hidden motive behind the attacks on these two countries was not merely the elimination of the terrorist groups and to stop their activities and to destroy the weapons of mass destruction but to capture the oil, gas, and other natural resources in order to sustain the fastest growing economy of the US and western countries. The present study will present a comparative analysis of the two approaches; unilateral and multilateral which were incorporated in U.S foreign policy with the special reference of Iraq and Afghanistan war.

The US Congress and Rogue States

Foreign policy has become one of the most polarizing issues in American politics. This paper investigates the extent to which this division extends to arguably one of the most bipartisan foreign policy issues: policies toward rogue states. Our examination of congressional voting and sponsorship data related to rogue states since 1991 finds that, while there is a high degree of bipartisanship on the issue, there are nuanced but significant partisan differences. First, we find that Democrats are significantly more likely to support a rogue state bill dealing with human rights concerns, whereas Republicans are significantly less likely to support a conciliatory bill. We also find that members of Congress are less likely to propose and support a rogue state bill in the presence of a co-partisan president. We thus conclude that, despite the overall high degree of bipartisanship on rogue state issues, partisanship plays an important role in influencing legislative behavior.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND ROGUE STATES: CONCERNS, REALITIES AND FUTURE THREATS

Proliferation of Nuclear technology is accepted as a grave threat to the world. However, after the initial use of this lethal weapon at the end of World War II, the technology and techniques were transferred from secret government programs and by private organizations in various fields. Such transformation has been amplified by the privatization of civil nuclear energy projects, as well as other established industries in such way that at the time of need they can use the technology in making of nuclear weapons. Thus, this advancement of nuclear weapons program, material, technology and expertise are not only accessible for purchase from nongovernmental institutions but it has also increased the threat of its misuse by non-state actors. This study examines not only reasons of military nuclearization adopted by powers that be and their regional rivals but also provide comprehensive analysis of relating threats of acquiring this devastating technology by Rogue states and non-states actors and possible future perils faced by the world due to misuse.

The Pursuit and Use of Biological Weapons by States

Biological weapons (BW) have been a fixture of warfare throughout history, although states did not have the capability of manufacturing BW arsenals until the 20th century. Few states had strategic objectives for BW production, but the fear of being outmatched by rivals produced arms races beginning in the 1920s. Both hegemonic and rogue states sought BW arsenals, although only Imperial Japan is known to have employed them. International agreements prohibiting BW have been ineffective, but normative, technical, and deterrent constraints have prevented the arms from being used. BW remain undertheorized in the international studies literature and have not been part of the great debates within the field. The literature on BW has instead been far more technical than that for other categories of armaments. The main division among BW researchers is whether the select agents are likely to be spread by proliferation to rogue states, terrorists, or lone actors or whether the technical difficulties inherent in production mean that only states that have invested in advanced research will be able to harness them. The biological weapons of the 21st century will be new technologies developed by great power militaries ranging from enhanced supersoldiers to genetic attacks that cause organ failure at the push of a button. These advancements raise difficult questions about Just War, military service, and domestic civil liberties. Just as the advent of nuclear weapons and drones preceded informed debate, military uses of biotechnology have already begun and require examination before they are deployed widely.

THE STRATEGIC EFFICACY OF DRONES FOR US GRAND STRATEGY

This paper assesses the role of drones in furthering or undermining US grand strategy. This is against the backdrop of the thinking that contemporary use of drones in the context of post 9/11 era undermine the successive US administration’s strategic objectives as evidenced by the rise of anti-Americanism in Muslim world, proliferation of drones by US near peer competitors, civilian death toll and weakening support for the US in targeted countries. This implies that while drones has played a historical and significant role for the US in power projection and asserting its unilateralism and military hegemony when dealing with rogue states and terrorist groups post 9/11, the political and strategic utility of drone strikes for US grand strategy is not apparent. Thus, this paper posits that though armed drones has played a quintessential role as a key instrument of statecraft for facilitating US offensive strategy in targeted states, the aftermath of drone strikes and its controversial aspects engender inimical outcomes that serve to undermine US strategic objectives. Based on qualitative analysis of secondary data, the paper questions the wisdom and benefits of using and shifting greater reliance towards armed drones, as a pathway for furthering US grand strategy.

Sanctions in U.S. - Russia Relations

Given America’s leading position in the global economy, the U.S. government has frequently leveraged that power to punish “rogue states”, discourage nuclear proliferation, promote democratization, and create pressure for regime change. Washington relied on economic incentives in relations with Russia after 1991, but since 2012 the United States has utilized a broad range of economic sanctions against Russian side, leading to a significant deterioration in what was already a troubled relationship. In contrast to earlier comprehensive sanctions like those imposed on Iraq and Haiti, the U.S. is now crafting “smart” or targeted sanctions designed to exert maximum pressure on selected Russian elites and firms. Rather than evaluating the effectiveness of these measures on changing Russian behavior, the author explores the neglected domestic dimension of the U.S. sanctions process to improve understanding of U.S. foreign policy. This article draws on primary sources in the form of Congressional legislation, executive orders, and official statements to analyze U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia, and develops three brief case studies - the Magnitsky Act, post-Ukraine sanctions, and the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act - to explicate the main issues and actors driving U.S. sanctions. The author argues that domestic factors, including Congressional pressures and interest group activity, are critical to understanding U.S. sanctions regimes. While President Donald Trump has frequently resisted congressionally imposed sanctions, expectations for a more conciliatory approach towards Russia under the Trump administration have not materialized.

China's Courtship with the so Called Rogue States and US Concerns

China's relations with the rogue states like Iran, North Korea and Syria pose some serious threats to the primacy of US in the world. Although US is the sole super power of the world but China's response to the global unipolarity projects China's non acceptance of the supremacy of US in the world. The economic and strategic nature of Chinese engagements in these "Rogue states" has engendered many uncertainties in the Washington. The US tried to pressurise China to quit her relations with the "Rogues states" but China did not listen to the US. This paper analyses the causes of China's love affairs with rogue states and to explore the major concerns of US in the courtship of China with the "Rogue states".

1. What are nuclear weapons?

How did nuclear weapons differ from what came before? ‘What are nuclear weapons?’ explains the science behind their creation by looking at the characteristics of the atom and the harnessing of its power for destructive purposes. The peaceful end of the Cold War was not the end of the nuclear threat. The detonation of a relatively small nuclear weapon in New York would be catastrophic, with the medical system unable to respond to the task of caring for the injured. After 9/11 and with an increased threat from rogue states, are we on the brink of a second nuclear age?

The juche H-bomb? North Korea, nuclear weapons and regime-state survival

Existing scholarship on North Korea's nuclear programme remains overwhelmingly centred around questions of containment or engagement with the North Korean regime-state, amid international calls for denuclearization. Yet, scholarship has rarely interrogated the precise value of nuclear weapons to the regime-state. This article develops a new theoretical framework of nuclear ideology to explore the puzzle of the survival of North Korea. This framework aims to show how the North Korean nuclear programme is deeply entrenched within the state ideology of juche, as one device for continued regime-state survival. Through interviews with elite North Korean defectors and textual analysis of North Korean and international sources, I show that North Korea's nuclear ideology has been constructed according to different frames of meaning, targeting referent actors of international ‘enemy’ powers and domestic audiences. This article concludes that nuclear ideology functions primarily as a tool to arouse domestic legitimacy for the North Korean regime-state, by targeting elite actors within the highly stratified domestic population. From an international perspective, perception of North Korea's survival remains tied largely to the regime-state's physical possession of nuclear weapons. This article has extremely timely theoretical and policy implications given the current ‘dialogue’ between US and North Korean leaders. First, it opens up fruitful avenues of inquiry surrounding questions of the legitimacy of rogue states within international relations. Secondly, this article calls for a more robust understanding of the domestic-level politics of North Korea, in order to understand the regime-state's foreign policy decisions vis-à-vis its nuclear programme.

SINO-RUSSIA NEXUS AND NEW COLD WAR IN EURASIA

Cold war between US and Soviet Union ended in 1989 but Cold War between Russia and USA is still there. US-Soviet Cold war was in fact an indirect clash of ideologies, while the New Cold War between US and Russia is an indirect clash of hegemony and influence. USA considers itself the master of the Globe after the end of First Cold War and Russia does not accept the superiority of USA and practise all those Activities, which are mainly punished by super powers. Without the consent of US, Russia is cooperating with rogue states, it makes alliances, and it attacks small countries like Georgia and Ukraine. USA is busy in all those states which were previously part of Soviet Union like Central Asian Countries. This paper states that Cold war has not ended but it has taken a pause and again it has been started between Russia and USA. Glaring examples in this regards are formation of BRICS, SCO, EEC and NATO expansionism in Afghanistan and Iraq and US USSR involvement in Middle East.