Suchergebnisse

The remarkable group of men who presided over our national defenses when our Republic was very young were wholly cognizant of the relation between armed force and foreign policy. They knew why the infant republic on the overseas periphery of the Western European civilization area had a chance to grow to maturity.

This dissertation examines the influence of Cuban-American exiles in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba from the 1980s to the present. The role of Cuban-American interest groups is analyzed within a larger context of U.S. national security objectives, national politics and Cuban politics. Instead of privileging domestic politics or national security politics in explaining Cuban-American influence, as other International Relations theories do, this study argues that Cuban exile politics can best be understood as an expression of subnational interest group power that affects, and is affected by, the shifting dynamics of local, national and global politics. Also, ideological divisions and demographic shifts in the Cuban-American community have impacted both Cuban-American public opinion and interest group strategy, thereby affecting U.S. foreign policy over time. The conclusion posits that hardline Cuban Americans' political power is waning in relation to newer generations of Cuban-Americans who are less conservative, more in favor of engagement, less politically active, and decreasing in proportional size relative to the South Florida electorate.

The United States utilizes a vast arsenal of foreign policy tools to induce, compel, and deter changes in other nations' foreign policies. Traditionally, U.S. foreign policy research focuses on the degree of success the U.S. Government has achieved when seeking specific objectives such as improvements in human rights conditions, democratic change, trade policies, and a host of other goals. In this Letort Paper, the author analyzes the extent to which intrastate and interstate conflict and terrorism in other nations are influenced by the depth and breadth of their military and foreign policy relationships with the United States. More specifically, he empirically analyzes the degree to which U.S. military and foreign policies such as the stationing of U.S. military personnel; the use of military force; the provision of foreign assistance, as well as a more general similarity of foreign policy interests between the United States and a foreign regime are statistically related to interstate and intrastate conflict and terrorist activity. The paper will better enable policymakers to identify which nations are most likely to become potential threats to American interests, and determine which mix of policy options works best in preventing the outbreak of terrorism and conflict within and among nations. ; "May 2008." ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 60-63). ; Introduction -- Background -- Hypotheses -- Methodology -- Conclusions. ; The United States utilizes a vast arsenal of foreign policy tools to induce, compel, and deter changes in other nations' foreign policies. Traditionally, U.S. foreign policy research focuses on the degree of success the U.S. Government has achieved when seeking specific objectives such as improvements in human rights conditions, democratic change, trade policies, and a host of other goals. In this Letort Paper, the author analyzes the extent to which intrastate and interstate conflict and terrorism in other nations are influenced by the depth and breadth of their military and foreign policy relationships with the United States. More specifically, he empirically analyzes the degree to which U.S. military and foreign policies such as the stationing of U.S. military personnel; the use of military force; the provision of foreign assistance, as well as a more general similarity of foreign policy interests between the United States and a foreign regime are statistically related to interstate and intrastate conflict and terrorist activity. The paper will better enable policymakers to identify which nations are most likely to become potential threats to American interests, and determine which mix of policy options works best in preventing the outbreak of terrorism and conflict within and among nations. ; Mode of access: Internet.

'U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War' edited by Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay is reviewed.

Introduction -- The West, U.S. foreign policy, and the making of the Islamic threat -- The United States of America and the Western world : the making of the Islamic image -- The context and ideologies of Islamist politics -- Case studies on Islamic movements -- Two case studies : Iran and the Middle East peace process, and Islamic movements after the invasion of Iraq -- Conclusion and policy recommendations

Preface and acknowledgements / Demetrios James Caraley -- Introduction / Robert Jervis -- American ways of foreign policy and foreign responses -- The lessons of September 11, Iraq, and the American pendulum / Christopher Hemmer -- From the "red juggernaut" to Iraqi WMD: threat inflation and how it succeeds in the United States / Jeffrey M. Cavanaugh -- The rise of a European defense / Seth G. Jones -- The neoconservative heritage and its flaws -- "The civilization of clashes": misapplying the democratic peace in the Middle East / Piki Ish-shalom -- Credibility and the war on terror / Christopher J. Fettweis -- Human rights and civil liberties -- U.S. human rights policy in the post-Cold War era / John W. Dietrich -- The rhetoric of genocide in U.S. foreign policy: Rwanda and Darfur compared / Eric A. Heinze -- Tragic choices in the war on terrorism: should we try to regulate and control torture? / Jerome Slater

The United States utilizes a vast arsenal of foreign policy tools to induce, compel, and deter changes in other nations' foreign policies. Traditionally, U.S. foreign policy research focuses on the degree of success the U.S. Government has achieved when seeking specific objectives such as improvements in human rights conditions, democratic change, trade policies, and a host of other goals. In this Letort Paper, the author analyzes the extent to which intrastate and interstate conflict and terrorism in other nations are influenced by the depth and breadth of their military and foreign policy relationships with the United States. More specifically, he empirically analyzes the degree to which U.S. military and foreign policies such as the stationing of U.S. military personnel; the use of military force; the provision of foreign assistance, as well as a more general similarity of foreign policy interests between the United States and a foreign regime are statistically related to interstate and intrastate conflict and terrorist activity. The paper will better enable policymakers to identify which nations are most likely to become potential threats to American interests, and determine which mix of policy options works best in preventing the outbreak of terrorism and conflict within and among nations. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1645/thumbnail.jpg

The U.S. relations to Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) are since the end of the Cold War revolving around achieving a state of nuclear free Korean peninsula. As non-proliferation is a long term of American foreign policy, relations to North Korea could be categorized primarily under this umbrella. However, the issue of North Korean political system also plays role as it belongs to the other important, more normative category of U.S. foreign policy which is the protection of human rights and spreading of democracy and liberal values. In addition, the North Korean issue influences U.S. relations and interests in broader region of Northeast Asia, its bilateral alliances with South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK) and Japan as well as sensitive and complex relations to People's Republic of China. As the current administration of president Donald J. Trump published its National security strategy and was fully occupied with the situation on Korean peninsula in its first year, the aim of the paper is to analyse the changes in evolution of U.S. North Korean policy under last three administrations, look at the different strategies adopted in order to achieve the same aim, the denuclearization. The paper does not provide a thorough analysis, neither looks at all documents adopted and presented in the U.S. or within the U.N. It more focuses on the general principles of particular strategies, most significant events in mutual relations as recorded by involved gov­ernmental officials and also weaknesses of these strategies as none has achieved desirable result. In conclusion, several options for current administration are drawn, however all of them require significant compromises and could be accompanied with series of setbacks dangerous for regional stability and U.S. position in the region.