Search

You searched for: Content Type Journal Article Remove constraint Content Type: Journal Article Political Geography United States Remove constraint Political Geography: United States Publication Year within 25 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 25 Years Publication Year within 10 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 10 Years Topic Foreign Policy Remove constraint Topic: Foreign Policy
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Tom Farer
  • Publication Date: 06-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The International Spectator
  • Institution: Istituto Affari Internazionali
  • Abstract: The only means available to the US to assume a responsibility to protect the Syrian people from slaughter was by credibly threatening Bashar al-Assad and the security and military elite surrounding him with a decapitating air strike if they did not immediately cease murdering protestors and begin negotiations with opposition figures to the end of making the regime broadly representative of the Syrian population. Credibility probably demanded an initial decimation, a technically possible move. In part because the US lacks the ideology and institutional structure of a real imperial power, in part because it is post-Bush a careful calculator of national interests, Syria, unlike Libya but much like Sudan and the DRC, was a bridge too far.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, Sudan, Libya, Syria
  • Author: Paul R. Pillar
  • Publication Date: 10-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Political Science Quarterly
  • Institution: Academy of Political Science
  • Abstract: THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN HAS BECOME, in two senses, an extraordinary preoccupation of the United States. One sense is that Iran is the subject of a strikingly large proportion of discourse about U.S. foreign policy. American pundits and politicians repeatedly mention Iran, usually with specific reference to its nuclear program, as among the biggest threats the United States faces. Republican nominee Mitt Romney, when asked in the last presidential debate of the 2012 campaign what was the single greatest future threat to U.S. national security, replied "a nuclear Iran." For politicians of both major U.S. political parties, expressions of concern about Iran and of the need to confront it have become a required catechism. The U.S. Congress has spent much time on such expressions and on imposing with lopsided votes ever broader economic sanctions on Iran. Frequent and evidently serious references are made to launching a military attack against Iran, even though such an attack- an act of aggression-would probably mean a war with heavy costs and damage to U.S. interests and probably would stimulate the very development of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it ostensibly would be designed to preclude.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, Iran
  • Author: David Scott
  • Publication Date: 11-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: International Relations of the Asia-Pacific
  • Institution: Japan Association of International Relations
  • Abstract: This article argues that the 'Indo-Pacific' has become an increasingly influential term during the last few years within Australian strategic debate. Consequently, the article looks at how the concept of the 'Indo- Pacific' as a region is impacting on Australia's strategic discussions about regional identity, regional role, and foreign policy practices. The term has a strategic logic for Australia in shaping its military strategy and strategic partnerships. Here, the article finds that Australian usage of the term operates as an accurate description of an evolving 'region' to conduct strategy within, but also operates quite frequently (though not inevitably or inherently) as a more contested basis for China-balancing. The article looks closely at four themes: the Indo-Pacific as a term, the rhetoric (strategic debate) in Australia surrounding the Indo-Pacific term, the Indo-Pacific policy formulations by Australia, and the developing Indo-Pacific nature of bilateral and trilateral linkages between Australia, India, and the United States.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Military Strategy
  • Political Geography: United States, China, India, Australia
  • Author: Pamela Sodhy
  • Publication Date: 11-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
  • Institution: Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
  • Abstract: This book, a compilation of Lee Kuan Yew's views and in-sights on foreign policy matters, is unique in that its contents are pulled from interviews with Lee and from his speeches and writings. The compilation is the work of three scholars: Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillion Professor of Government and the Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School; Robert D. Blackwill, the Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Ali Wyne, a researcher at Harvard's Belfer Center. They use a question and answer format, starting each chapter with a list of specific questions and then providing Lee's answers. Their aim, as stated in the Preface, is “not to look back on the past 50 years, remarkable as Lee's contributions to them have been. Rather our focus is the future and the specific challenges that the United States will face during the next quarter century.” To them, Lee's answers are meant to be “of value not only to those shaping U.S. foreign policy, but also to leaders of businesses and civil society in the United States.” The book spans Lee's insights over a half century, covering different periods: as Prime Minister of Singapore; Senior Minister under his successor, Goh Chok Tong; Minister Mentor under his son, Lee Hsien Loong; and, since 2011, as Senior Advisor and Emeritus Senior Minister. In terms of content, the book is very comprehensive as it deals with Lee's views on numerous foreign policy topics. As for the book's organization, its first part is unusual in that a Foreword, by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, is followed by a short section with a title in the form of a question: “Who is Lee Kuan Yew?” Next is another short section, also with a question, this time entitled “When Lee Kuan Yew Talks, Who Listens?” After that is the Preface, followed by ten chapters, with the first eight providing Lee's views about the future
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, China
  • Author: Harold Hongju Koh, Michael Doyle
  • Publication Date: 12-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Foreign Affairs
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: In “The War of Law” (July/August 2013), Jon Kyl, Douglas Feith, and John Fonte purport to explain the state of international law and how it “undermines democratic sovereignty.” Their portrayal, however, hardly rises above caricature. Their legal prescriptions ignore constitutional history and, if followed, would drastically weaken U.S. foreign policy. The authors may not like the contemporary practice of international law, but their own ideas are painfully antiquated, better suited to an insular nineteenth-century nation than the great power the United States has become.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, International Law, Law
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Mohammad Javad Bakhtiari, Fariba Hossein Nia Salimi
  • Publication Date: 12-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
  • Institution: Center for Strategic Research
  • Abstract: The article tries to examine Britain's place in EU's policymaking towards Iran. Having in mind the importance of the EU in international stages and also in economic and political matters, the following article has shed light on the ups and downs of Iran's relations with the UK as one of the important EU-nation states and has concluded that an effective but careful and logical relationship with EU member states could expand the space of more collaborations and in this regard Iran can utilize EU's capacities. Britain in contrary to the US has avoided military tools and has chosen a negotiating policy toward Iran and has assured other member states of these negotiations. Iran should choose a definite strategy towards EU based on having a complete knowledge of each member – state and their capabilities and special potentials in cooperation with Iran.
  • Topic: International Relations, Foreign Policy, Economics
  • Political Geography: Britain, United States, United Kingdom, Europe, Iran
  • Author: Liora Danan, Johanna Mendelson Forman
  • Publication Date: 12-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: PRISM
  • Institution: National Defense University Press
  • Abstract: Foreign internal conflicts clearly remain a permanent feature of the u.S. foreign policy landscape, especially since the united States regularly participates in efforts to stabilize countries affected by conflict and then helps them recover afterwards. Yet u.S. government officials and the american public in general have difficulty accepting the inevitability of u.S. involvement in such efforts. to ensure lasting progress and security in post-conflict situations, the united States must adjust its approach from a focus on large military operations to preparing adequately for small-scale, long-term interventions. Most u.S. military deployments since the end of the Cold War have been in “small wars” or what the Department of Defense once called “military operations other than war.”1 Yet the military has usually been more prepared to fight large, technologically advanced wars than smaller contingencies that require greater integration with civilian capacities. as a consequence, each time the u.S. military is deployed to a complex–but “small”–emergency, it has had to relearn lessons on the ground about the best way to manage these types of contingencies. Civilian participation in stabilization and reconstruction efforts is likewise inevitable, but civilian institutions are even less prepared for such work than the military. Lessons learned over the last decade are only recently being institutionalized, through offices like Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) and the u.S. agency for International Development's Office of transition Initiatives (OtI). In part this is due to bureaucratic politics.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Cold War
  • Political Geography: Afghanistan, United States
  • Author: James Q. Roberts
  • Publication Date: 12-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: PRISM
  • Institution: National Defense University Press
  • Abstract: The new defense strategy, “Sustaining u.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” released in January of this 2012, makes clear the mandate for the Department of Defense to continue, in fact to increase significantly, its abilities to improve the capabilities of partners around the globe. In his cover letter to the guidance, President Barack Obama directs us to “join with allies and partners around the world to build their capacity to promote security, prosperity, and human dignity.” Likewise, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in his preface, stresses that the department will focus on “strengthening alliances and partnerships across all regions.” this is not traditional guidance for the Department of Defense. Such guidance usually focuses on how to fight and win the nation's wars. But after more than ten years of combat operations in afghanistan and Iraq, and in these times of impending steep fiscal reductions the utility of partners who can share the burden of defending their countries individually, and their regions collectively, has come to the fore. this guidance displays the degree to which the department in general, and the Geographic Combatant Commanders in particular, have come to recognize the value in helping partners improve their capability to govern their own territories.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Kari Mottola
  • Publication Date: 09-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: PRISM
  • Institution: National Defense University Press
  • Abstract: Despite the apparent strength of their case, the community of planners, veterans, think-tankers and civic activists working in external security and humanitarian missions are puzzled and frustrated with the past and present performance of the United States in such missions, and anguished about the future.2 It is not that the United States has not taken action in foreign conflicts, regional instabilities or humanitarian catastrophes. It is not that the response to fragile or failed states has not been a key agenda item in U.S. foreign and security policy throughout the post-Cold War era. Where America as a polity has come short is in failing to recognize, as a permanent national security interest, the need to design and pursue a strategic policy on stabilization and reconstruction. While the concept may be debatable and the capability may be constrained by developments, what those devoted to the cause call for is a policy with a sustainable balance between ends and means and commensurate to the responsibility of U.S. global leadership.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Cold War
  • Political Geography: United States, Europe
  • Publication Date: 01-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: CTC Sentinel
  • Institution: The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
  • Abstract: In the past six months, a series of major incidents between the United States and Pakistan has brought their relationship to a new low. Even Pakistan's longstanding allies and European aid donors are increasingly at odds with Islamabad's current foreign policy. These tensions have Pakistani civilians feeling as if their country is at war with the world.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, United States, Islamabad