Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Content Type Journal Article Publication Year within 3 Years

241. Between Eurasia and the Middle East: Azerbaijan’s New Geopolitics

Author:
Svante Cornell
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
Azerbaijan’s geopolitics have changed considerably in the last decade, along with the growing general instability in its neighborhood. Gone are the days symbolized by the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline’s construction, when a relatively stable balance existed between a loose Russian-led alignment including Iran and Armenia, and an informal entente between the United States and Turkey, which supported the independence of Azerbaijan and Georgia and the construction of direct energy transportation routes to Europe.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Middle East, and Azerbaijan

242. Against ‘the Blob’: America’s Foreign Policy in Eurasia’s Heartland is Becoming its Own Greatest Enemy

Author:
Michael A. Reynolds
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
As this article goes to press, America and the world are in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic’s end remains invisible, yet it has already wreaked extraordinary economic disruption around the globe. Inevitably, political upheaval will follow. Indeed, the strain of the pandemic has now catalyzed social and political unrest throughout the United States on a level not seen in half a century.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Grand Strategy
Political Geography:
United States and Eurasia

243. Eurasia, the Hegemon, and the Three Sovereigns

Author:
Pepe Escobar
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
I t is my contention that there are essentially four truly sovereign states in the world today, at least amongst the major powers: the United States, the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These four sovereigns—I call them the Hegemon and the Three Sovereigns—stand at the vanguard of the ultra-postmodern world, characterized by the supremacy of data algorithms and techno-financialization ruling over politics.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Power Politics, Geopolitics, Emerging Powers, and Regional Power
Political Geography:
United States, China, Iran, Global Focus, and Russian Federation

244. Strategic Equilibrium: Azerbaijan’s Foreign Policy

Author:
Hikmat Hajiyev
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
We all know that today Azerbaijan has good relations with its neighbors—except one, for obvious reasons—and that the country plays a crucial role in the development of the region. The development of mutually beneficial relations with neighbors, based on understanding and respect, is the foreign policy priority of Azerbaijan as defined by the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. The realization of economic projects and the increase of prosperity was the result of the establishment of an atmosphere of partnership, both with regional and other partners. And one can refer to such a successful foreign policy with the academic term “strategic balancing.” But we can more properly classify it as an independent and pragmatic foreign policy based on the national interest.
Topic:
Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
Azerbaijan

245. Reassessing U.S.-Azerbaijani Relations: A Shared Imperative to Look Ahead

Author:
Robert F. Cekuta
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
The U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship remains important to both countries, but it is time to reevaluate and update how they engage with each other. The Second Karabakh War is the most visible of the reasons for such a reassessment, given Azerbaijan’s military successes, Russia’s headline role in securing the November 2020 agreement that halted the fighting, and the need to undertake the extremely difficult work of avoiding a new war and building a peace. But China’s high profile economic, diplomatic, and security activities across Eurasia, coupled with the results of the November 2020 election in the United States, have also significantly altered the diplomatic environment. Lastly, multinational challenges—such as the economic, social, and other ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic or the realities of climate change—make the need for revaluation, dialogue, and mapping out new directions in the two countries’ relations even more apparent.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
United States, China, Eurasia, and Azerbaijan

246. Turkey’s approach to proxy war in the Middle East and North Africa

Author:
Engin Yüksel
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:
War Studies University
Abstract:
The last decade has seen a growing trend towards the use of proxies in the Middle East and North Africa following the outbreak of the Arab Spring. In this context, the issue of Turkey’s approach to proxy war in these regions has received considerable attention since 2016. Thereby, the purpose of this article is to investigate the essential characteristics of Turkish proxy war strategy in Syria and Libya. As such, this study intends to trace the development of Turkish proxy war strategy by making use of the conceptual frameworks proposed by Groh (2019), O’Brien (2012) and Art (1998). The most obvious finding to emerge from the analysis is that Turkey changed its indirect intervention strategy from donated assistance to proxy warfare in Syria and Libya when it saw a greater need to influence the result of the conflicts. In the case of Syria, this study has shown that the controlthrough-centralisation approach towards the Armed Syrian Opposition has enabled Turkey to carry out an effective proxy war strategy from 2016 onwards. In Libya, the results of this investigation have shown that theTurkish Army has pursued a proxy war strategy since Ankara and the Government of National Accord (GNA) signed an agreement on security and military cooperation in December 2019. The article concludes that Turkey has centralised many revolutionary groups under an Islamist-nationalistic vision and partnered them with its own military in order to expand its influence in the Middle East and North Africa.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Armed Forces, and Proxy War
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Libya, North Africa, and Syria

247. The U.S.–Middle East Future: In the Face of Fatigue

Author:
Sydney Wise
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
As the Trump presidency ends and Joe Biden is set to be the next U.S. president, thinkers convene to consider what his administration means for the Middle East.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Transition
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

248. What does a Trump or Biden presidency mean for Israel and Palestine?

Author:
Khaled Elgindy
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
Next month’s election may be instrumental in salvaging what hope remains for a two-state solution.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Elections, and Voting
Political Geography:
Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

249. Arabs Try to Make Sense of What is Happening in the United States

Author:
Dania El Akkawi
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
How have contentious domestic crises in the United States impacted the Arab world’s perception of the global leader?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

250. Reconsidering Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century

Author:
Teimuraz Papaskiri
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
The Russian occupation of Crimea in February-March 2014, marked the beginning of a new phase of tension between the Western world and Russia. Although it was predicted several years prior to the conflict that Ukraine would be Russia’s next victim,1 nobody paid much attention to these warnings. Thus, the Russian moves proved surprising for most Western societies, especially for the leaders of Western countries. It effectively ended the inefficient policy of “reset”, which was actually stillborn, because of the inability of the American administration to understand Vladimir Putin’s person and his goals. In June 2001, Putin met US President George W. Bush, who said after this meeting: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”2 President Bush was ridiculed for these words, yet even nine years later, he did not acknowledge his mistake. In 2010, he said: “I did not make a mistake in [my] assessment of Russian leader Vladimir Putin [...] Putin became a different person [...] I think, to a certain extent, he changed.”3 It seems that George W. Bush was not able to figure out that it was not Putin who had changed. It was the fact that U.S. and Eu- ropean leaders did not grasp which country Vladimir Putin was “deeply committed” to. For the Russian president, “his country” meant the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation. He even officially declared that, “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopo- litical catastrophe of the century”.4 (Emphasis added – T.P.) This phrase was not just mere nostalgia for the “good old times”, otherwise no one in his right mind would ever call the break-up of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” When talking about the 20th century, during which two world wars cost more than 80 million lives combined, the break-up of one empire with nearly no casualties cannot be considered “the greatest catastrophe.” Therefore, those words meant that Putin’s intention was to re- store, at least, to some extent, the “old greatness” of the Soviet Empire.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Empire, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe