Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America Content Type Journal Article Publication Year within 3 Years

11. Pivotal States, Not Swing States

Author:
Mohammed Soliman
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
The United States, in particular, is grappling with the challenges posed by the emerging multipolar order and the need to secure a favorable position in this evolving global landscape. As part of this contemplation, there is a growing recognition of the significance of “swing states” like India, Türkiye, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia in shaping the outcome of the postCold War order and the broader global system. However, framing these consequential states as “swing states” in and of itself carries significant risk, as it implies that the only choice they have is a binary one: pick the U.S.-led West or the China and Russia axis. In reality, their strategic posture is far away from choosing one side over the other; at the same time, they are not behaving similarly to the Cold War-era non-aligned movement that was inherently anti-Western and leaned towards the Soviet-led block under the disguise of anti-colonialism solidarity. The appropriate strategic name for this growing list of countries in the present-day is “pivotal states,” and includes Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye, chosen for their strategic geography, demography, and overall strength. Alongside these, there are other pivotal states with unique roles, such as Vietnam due to its position in the global supply chain and Egypt as a maritime bottleneck between the East and West. It is now widely acknowledged that international stability and the outcome of the U.S.-China neoCold War are influenced by factors beyond the behavior of Russia and China. But one crucial factor that remains underappreciated is that the behavior of pivotal states— which are determined to chart an independent course—will play vital roles in shaping the future of the international system. It is essential to recognize that these pivotal states inherently reject the bipolarity and “Cold War 2.0” framing that dominates the perspectives of, for example, Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, Strategic Stability, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia, Indonesia, Turkey, India, Brazil, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

12. Seeking Safer Shells: An Analysis of Interpretations, Justifications, and Rationales Behind Decisions on North Korean Defectors’ Right to Asylum

Author:
Megumi Faith Mallari and Saleh Naas
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
Despite their known and indisputable need for protection, North Koreans often have their applications for asylum rejected. This paper outlines the differing interpretations of North Koreans’ right to asylum and investigates the rationales and justifications behind them through the case studies of the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and China (PRC). The paper argues that the rationale of the European countries analyzed is based on their generally restrictive view on asylum, independent from their political positioning on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Contrastingly, the rationales of the United States and the PRC are grounded in interests directly related to the Korean peninsula and Cold War narratives.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Asylum, and Refugee Policy
Political Geography:
China, United Kingdom, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, France, Germany, Netherlands, and United States of America

13. Revising Organ Procurement Organization Guidelines to Obtaining Family Consent for Deceased Donation: An Anthropologically Informed Policy Proposal

Author:
Gillian Tisdale
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
Organ transplantation has become a widespread medical practice with public policy designed to increase rates of deceased donation. When individuals have not registered as organ donors, next-of-kin are called on to make donation decisions—requiring families to grapple with the often-confusing concept of ‘brain death’ and parse their understanding of what the deceased would have wanted. Current public policy is explicitly designed to promote high donation rates without clear regard to the experiences of donor-families; at best, these policies prime donation conversations to involve unethical practices, while at worst, the disregard of kin’s experiences may also diminish deceased donation rates. Anthropological literature has documented the often aggressive tactics used by transplant organizations that demonstrate a disregard for the emotional experiences of kin. In 2023, Congress passed the Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act, prompting the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reevaluate organ donation policies and solicit requests for proposal for a new federal contractor to take over the network responsible for overseeing all organ sharing. This article leverages the relevant anthropological literature to provide guiding principles and proposed language amending the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Interpretive Guidance that HHS could implement as part of its modernization initiative. These principles aim to improve experiences for kin without lowering donation rates. The article recommends that HHS and its contractors collect metrics to measure the quality of Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) interactions, counterbalancing current benchmarks focused on procurement rates. It also recommends improved protocols to empathically and systematically support kin’s understanding of brain death.
Topic:
Legislation, Public Policy, Procurement, and Organ Transplants
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

14. Guam in Washington, 1972-Present: The Overlooked Strategic Implications of Congressional Polarization

Author:
Mirabai Venkatesh
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
Contrary to the long-held logic that giving Guam a stronger, more autonomous voice will undermine U.S. strategic interests, failing to provide Guam with a stable pathway of interest advancement beyond Congress hinders its development and with it the federal government’s ability to achieve soft-power advantages and basic military readiness in the Indo-Pacific theater. Since the United States assumed responsibility for administering the territory of Guam in 1898, it has treated the prospect of Guam’s status improvement as detrimental to U.S. strategic interests. This has informed its chosen method of territorial administration, which places U.S. territories under the authority of the Department of the Interior. Each territory is then given only one formal representative in Congress, specifically the U.S. House of Representatives, but without full-voting rights. This paper will explore how Guam has managed to advance its interests in Washington since 1972, highlighting how congressional representation has become Guam’s most successful pathway of interest advancement with the federal government to date. However, the agency and success of Guam’s congressional delegates must be framed within a broader discussion of the fragility of the U.S. approach to territorial administration, which has relegated Guam to a pathway of interest advancement incredibly vulnerable to political sea change. Ultimately, this paper will illustrate how Guam’s main pathway of interest advancement in Washington is quickly narrowing at the expense of U.S. strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, History, Soft Power, Autonomy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Asia-Pacific, United States of America, Indo-Pacific, and Guam

15. US Hegemony in Latin America: Think Tanks and the Formation of Consensus about the Chinese Presence

Author:
Luciana Wietchikoski and Livia Peres Milani
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
Institution:
Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
Abstract:
In recent years, U.S. government agencies have defined the Chinese presence in Latin America as a challenge, which has organized foreign policy towards the region. Departing from a neo-Gramscian approach, this paper investigates the bibliographical production of U.S. think tanks and seeks to understand the construction of consensus about the Chinese presence in Latin America. The methodology is based on content analysis and we identified two main narratives: in the first, the Chinese presence is presented as a threat to U.S. regional hegemony; in the second, the Chinese adaptation to liberal precepts is sought. There are therefore nuances in how the Chinese power is perceived, although the discourses remain restricted to the promotion of capitalism and neoliberalism under U.S. leadership.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, and Think Tanks
Political Geography:
China, Latin America, North America, and United States of America

16. How American Public Opinion on Palestine Shifted

Author:
Geneive Abdo
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
Overlapping connections among young activists struggling for the rights of women, 2SLGBTQIA+, Black Lives Matter, indigenous Indians, Latinos, and all people of color have produced a dramatic shift in how the Palestinian–Israeli conflict is being perceived in the United States
Topic:
Public Opinion, Solidarity, Protests, Ceasefire, and Activism
Political Geography:
Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

17. Covering the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict: Between Exasperation and Empathy

Author:
Lawrence Pintak
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
A personal reflection of American involvement in the region’s wars through the eyes of a correspondent
Topic:
Media, Journalism, Israeli–Palestinian Conflict, and Empathy
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America

18. Gaza: Israel’s Unwinnable War

Author:
Richard Silverstein
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
Even if, for argument’s sake, it achieved its war goals, Palestinian resistance will exist wherever there are Palestinians—whether in Sinai, Beirut, Ankara, Tehran or Amman
Topic:
Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Axis of Resistance, 2023 Gaza War, and AIPAC
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America

19. NATO: Waging High-Tech Warfare

Author:
Yury Belobrov
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
THE rapid technological progress observed in the last decade throughout the world, especially in China and Russia, threatens the established sources of military and industrial dominance of the collective West on the world stage. NATO views this as an alarming trend, and in an attempt to stop it, bloc members are making a determined effort to preserve their militarytechnological leadership and the international order structured around their policies. To this end, they are initiating a new arms race, partially through the active incorporation into the military sphere of the latest breakthrough technologies (Emerging and Disruptive Technologies – EDT), which, they believe, can reverse the emerging multipolarity of international relations and radically change the nature of future wars. Thus, the Allies are stepping up collective efforts to master innovative technologies and introduce them into the operational activities of NATO and all member nations to ensure their victory in future high-tech wars. They emphasize the urgency of adapting the armed forces of said countries to the realities of global technological advancement. As the communiqué adopted at the Alliance summit in Vilnius in 2023 directly stated: “We are accelerating our own efforts to ensure that the Alliance maintains its technological edge in emerging and disruptive technologies to retain our interoperability and military advantage including through dual-use solutions.”1 The US, as the main sponsor of NATO militarism, demands that its allies and partners closely and expeditiously collaborate on the creation of novel weaponry utilizing these emerging technologies and dramatically increase investment in various EDT projects and adapt their armed forces to them. Under the US’s diktat, Brussels and its American allies are creating new bureaucratic and financial entities. Private businesses and academic and research institutions are also being drawn into this sphere. To speed up this process, at the urging of Washington at the NATO summit in Brussels in 2021, a strategic initiative was launched to create the NATO Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), which will manage and coordinate all this activity within NATO. The main task of this organization is to form an innovative technological network that unites R&D centers, innovative start-ups, defense enterprises, and military agencies in order to simultaneously and rapidly master all types of dual-use EDT technologies and implement them in the civilian and military fields. In addition to these efforts, a decision was also made to form a €1 billion NATO Innovation Fund to finance venture capital companies developing dual EDT in areas of strategic importance to NATO. Essentially, these decisions by the alliance are aimed at mobilizing European resources, primarily to strengthen American military power. Of course, the main efforts to field the latest technologies are being undertaken by the largest member nations.
Topic:
NATO, International Cooperation, Weapons, Innovation, Emerging Technology, High-Tech Wars, and Military and Industrial Advantage
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and United States of America

20. The Global West and Global South: Development Paths

Author:
Maria Zakharova
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
I would like to highlight the fact that Russia is notably absent, it would seem, from the “South-West” paradigm. This is because our country cannot be fully categorized as either Western or Southern. We exist everywhere, and yet we do not fit neatly into these constructs. Some perspectives associate Russia with the Global North, while others link us to the Global East. However, [Russia’s] 2023 Foreign Policy Concept, which Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko referenced, defines the Russian Federation as a “unique state-civilization and a vast Eurasian and Euro-Pacific power” – a scope broader than these conventional classifications. And in the context of our discussion today, it is imperative to acknowledge Russia’s influence on global affairs. The concept of the Global West is relatively straightforward; it encompasses the US, the EU countries, and to some extent the Asia- Pacific region, knit together by American-centric military, political, and economic alliances – what they call Euro-Atlantic values. This is a product of the historical West, which has been extending its influence over the non-Western world for around five centuries, starting from the Age of Discovery, in an attempt to dominate it by all possible means. However, it is worth noting that calling the current era neocolonialism may be overly generous. I would refrain from such a characterization, as it gives too much credit. While there are undoubtedly flaws in these cultures, they also have rich cultural histories. In recent decades, individuals have risen to power in the US and Britain whose thinking is characterized more by piracy and banditry than by a philosophical understanding of colonialism, which is by no means good. But this is worse than neocolonialism – it is outright robbery. To illustrate, I once used the analogy of the US acting like a cowboy in the Louvre who simply shoots everything in sight, unaware that the objects before him are valuable works of art.
Topic:
Security, Treaties and Agreements, Developing World, State, BRICS, Civilization, and Regional Organizations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States of America, Global South, and Global West