Search results

By keeping away from practically all mechanisms of regional integration and cooperation, Turkmenistan stands apart from its Central Asian neighbors. One of the CIS founding members, it gradually reduced its involvement in the Commonwealth to purely nominal: nowadays the CIS is regarded as a structure that passes general non-obligatory decisions, while the U.N. is declared to be the republic's priority for ideological reasons. At the same time, the very specific nature of Turkmenistan's ruling regime is keeping the world community away from the country's domestic affairs. For the same reason, Turkmenistan refused to grasp the opportunity offered by the events of 9/11, which riveted the world's attention on the region, to extend its ties with the West, something that other Central Asian countries did not miss. On the whole, Turkmenistan can be described as a closed country devoid of any geopolitical ambitions, opting for voluntary self-isolation. Inside the country, this is described as "positive neutrality." The constitutional Law on Turkmenistan's Permanent Neutrality of 27 December, 1995 serves as the legal cornerstone of the country's foreign policy. It describes Turkmenistan's Constitution, rights, and obligations as those of a neutral state. In the military-political sphere, in particular, it is expected to pursue a peace-loving foreign policy based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states and keep away from military blocs, unions, and inter-state alliances that impose strict functions on or presuppose collective responsibility of its members. Under the law, the republic pledges not to start wars and armed conflicts, not to take part in them (self-defense being the only exception), and not to do anything that might provoke a war or a conflict. The country does not allow other states to set up military bases on its territory or use its territory for military purposes, nor does it possess, produce, or take part in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In the economic sphere, the republic is expected to develop international mutually advantageous economic cooperation on the basis of equality and with due account of the interests of all the sides involved; to keep open its financial-economic expanse; and to avoid economic pressure as a political tool (the "open doors" strategy is a foreign economic component of the "positive neutrality" conception). Finally, in the humanitarian sphere, the republic pledges to recognize and respect the basic generally accepted human and civil rights and democratic freedoms; to promote international exchange of spiritual values; and to cooperate with the world community on the humanitarian issues. 1 Certain Turkmenian lawyers insist that besides being set forth in the country's domestic legislation, their country's neutral status rests on the firm basis of international law. 2 This sounds like an overstatement: the problem belongs primarily to the context of nation-building and the development of Turkmenistan's national ideology.

American public opinion about foreign policy is neither volatile nor capricious. Contrary to much conventional wisdom, collective opinion has tended to be rather stable. When it has changed, it has done so by responding in rational ways to international and domestic events that have been reported and interpreted by the mass media and by policymakers and other elites. The public has not always successfully judged the best interests of the United States or that of people elsewhere, nor have elites and the media always reported truthfully and interpreted correctly. Nevertheless, we maintain that Americans, as a collective body, have done well with whatever information has been provided, and that they have formed and changed their policy preferences in a reasonable manner. This conclusion is based upon analysis, both quantitative and historical, of a comprehensive set of data on foreign policy opinion changes in the United States from the 1930s to the 1980s.

The twenty first century will be remembered in the history of mankind as the century of change, constant danger, "clash of civilisations", collective insecurity, mistrust towards "the other", injustices caused by the Iraq war and by the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, in the United States, March 11th 2004, in Spain, and July 7th 2005, in London, respectively. We should not, however, neglect all the other terrorist attacks to the most elementary human rights perpetrated every day around the world. Indeed, the "insecurity" epidemic proliferates around the globe. Therefore, it is urgent for the European Union (EU) to adopt and implement a reinforced Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

None of the perplexing problems of contemporary international affairs has given rise to more confusing discussion than the relationship of Soviet ideology to the foreign policy of the USSR. The very vagueness of the term "Soviet ideology," or "Communist ideology" (and are they synonymous?), the uncertainty to what extent this uncertain force motivates the makers of Soviet policies, have compounded our difficulties in understanding the behavior of one of the world's two superpowers. Are Russia's rulers motivated by cynical power politics? Are they ideological fanatics? Is tlie content of their ideology the gospel of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, or something else? Questions can be compounded ad infinitum.