Suchergebnisse

In this article, the author attempts to determine the strategic directions of Romania's foreign policy. Significant geopolitical events in Europe expose the need to clarify the priorities of the policy pursued by the country. Historically in foreign relations Romania has employed diplomatic strategies that allowed it, according to historians, to «anoeuvre» between the centres of power on the international arena. However, in the early 2000's a departure from this tradition has become apparent, especially during the administration of Traian Basescu (2004–2014), which also coincided with the country's joining NATO in 2004 and EU in 2007. After the collapse of the socialist bloc Romania set its priorities, firstly, in the direction of joining both NATO and EU and later bringing the country in accordance with their norms and standards was put high on the agenda. Having become a member of the Alliance and an EU-state, Romania has been determining its foreign policy from the point of view of synchronizing its strategic goals with those of NATO and EU. Along with this, the strategic partnership with the US and the attached to it significant importance for Romania dictate the one-sided political approach deprived of the traditional manoeuvre capability in foreign affairs. This is also proven by the fact that despite the declared and established privileged relations with a number of countries, the level of their "strategic" execution is very low in reality. That being said, the direction of the relations between Romania and the Russian Federation, whose views on many regional and international issues differ, are likely to be greatly influenced by the state of the Russia-West affairs. Having analyzed the historic and current aspects of Romania's foreign policy, the author determines the preservation of the euroatlanticism course as the main direction of the development of the foreign policy of Romania.

Addresses by Secretary of State Warren Christopher at Columbia University, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, US ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright at the National War College, and President Clinton at the UN General Assembly, Sept. 20-27, 1993.

"Serial no. 111-157." ; Shipping list no.: 2011-0411-P ; Includes bibliographical references ; Mode of access: Internet.

In January 2013 Slovakia is commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the Slovak Republic. This seems to be a good opportunity to look back, recall the road we have walked for the past two decades and assess our achievements so far. Where were we twenty years ago? What were our strategic foreign policy goals? And what were our biggest challenges? How far have we come since then? To ask these and similar questions is not an end in itself. It is important for another reason. The answers could help us address our most important foreign policy issue, concerning our way forward. Adapted from the source document.

In looking at the history of U.S. aid, three general goals emerge: political stability, increased economic liberalization and expanding influence in the aid receiving country. While the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has measures in place to assess the success of its aid endeavors, most U.S. aid, in the form of economic and military aid, is largely unevaluated in terms of achieving these broad foreign policy goals. The results of this study suggest that U.S. military and economic aid fail to achieve these three general foreign policy objectives in a sustainable manner. Conducting a regression analysis of U.S. aid indicates that, in the short term, economic aid does succeed in promoting increased economic liberalization, but the concurrent giving of military aid cancels the effect. In the long term, the giving of economic aid supports the stability of a state's government, but the U.S. will want to assess what other methods might produce similar and more enduring results at less cost.