AbstractThis article examines Sen. J. William Fulbright's views of and impact on U.S. policy toward the Middle East, particularly the Arab‐Israeli conflict. It contributes to the literature on the history of U.S.‐Middle East relations and the role of Congress in foreign policy. While Fulbright was not always (or even most of the time) successful in shaping debate and policy along the lines that he advocated, at several crucial junctures, he did have an important influence on U.S. policy toward the region.
This article focuses on the historical development of political institutions in Denmark after the Second World War and their influence on foreign policy decision-making. This is in line with an emergent trend in the second half of the 20th century reflected in the increasing power of Folketing (the Danish Parliament) driven by a growing number of special parliamentary commissions responsible for particular aspects of foreign policy. It follows from the study that the political system of Denmark has been characterized by continuity, stability and predictability since the Second World War. The example of Danish foreign policy demonstrates that socio-political stability and a high level of economic development combined with an active multilateral diplomacy is one of the most efficient soft power instruments to enhance the international image of a country. The article distinguishes institutional prerequisites for this development based on the analysis of the political actors and their involvement in the formation of the foreign policy. The unique decision-making system has allowed Denmark to achieve a remarkable success in defending and promoting its national interests, skillfully manoeuvring between great powers and ensuring the continuity of its foreign policy regardless of the coalition in power. In spite of its relevance, there is still a gap in the studies of foreign policy of small states in post-Soviet historiography. The empirical base of this research is comprised of publications in Nordic languages as well as in Polish and Russian, collected and studied by the author in the Royal Danish Library in Copenhagen, the National library of Russia in Saint Petersburg, the National Library of Poland, the National Library of Iceland, and from online resources.
In this article, the authors point to the basic priorities the future foreign policy of the Republic of Serbia should include. They point out that a basic social and political consensus on the most important foreign policy objectives should be primarily achieved. Afterwards, the way of tactical and operational implementation of the set objectives should be defined within the strategy specifying the constitutional and legal institutional frameworks for its implementation. Considerable attention is devoted to the positioning of the Republic of Serbia to the European Union and NATO, the United States of America and the Russian Federation as well as to the participation of Serbia in the work of universal and regional organizations. The paper also analyses the bilateral and multilateral relations in the Western Balkans region.
Maxine Isaacs introduces the responses of the eight Democratic presidential candidates to a question regarding their prospective foreign policy platforms. Wesley K. Clark will rely principally on diplomatic, political, & economic power & international law in support of preventive engagement. He will begin by restoring the US alliance with Europe via a new Atlantic Charter, in which the revitalization of NATO is central. Howard Dean charging that the Bush administration has strayed from national security priorities & lamenting the partisan politics that have infected national security policy, calls for a forceful multilateral challenge to terrorism, improved domestic security, & the enlisting of Muslim & Arab country aid in the war on terror. John Edwards urges improved homeland security, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction abroad, victory in the war on terrorism, & global promotion of democracy & freedom. This hinges on US leadership of, rather than disregard, for the world. Richard Gephardt will draw on the long, successful tradition of leadership that has underpinned US foreign policy since WWII, a tradition discounted by George Bush, whose unilateralism has alienated many nations. A more comprehensive notion of security is posited on the basis of consensus building, threat prevention, & promotion of democracy in unstable regions. John Kerry advocates a bold, progressive internationalism encompassing a superior military supported by the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, & human rights. He explicates how this progressive internationalism would work differently from the Bush administration's approach. Joseph I. Liberman outlines Bush's foreign policy failures before making a commitment to renew the US's strengths at home & abroad by becoming a global citizen again & promoting US values. He will increase US power & authority by strengthening NATO, pursuing Middle East peace, improve the UN, & build an alliance for democracy. A call is made to side with moderate Muslims against terrorism. Carol Moseley Braun accuses the Bush administration of pandering to the deepest US fears while paralyzing cooperation & undermining alliances. She looks to reclaim US leadership, respect, & credibility by rejecting the alienation & deprecation of US allies. Al Sharpton contends that the credibility of US foreign policy is at stake. He argues that a respectable foreign policy begins with a president with the conviction to rethink failed policies, humble enough to make changes, & strong enough to go after the right answers. J. Zendejas
Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making, Alex Mintz, ed., New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, pp. 175Heuristic method uses formal reasoning that is based on experience, often because there is no precise and/or relevant algorithm available. Heuristic reasoning is guided by trial and error. It is convincing without being rigorous. Heuristic method is basically a rule of thumb or other simplifications that allow drawing conclusions without being certain.
A GROWING HISPANIC MINORITY IN THE US, AN INCREASED CONSCIOUSNESS OF LATIN AMERICA IN THE US, AND MORE US INTERDEPENDENCE WITH LATIN AMERICA HAVE CAUSED THE US TO TAKE LATIN AMERICA SERIOUSLY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND DEVELOP A MORE MATURE FOREIGN POLICY WITH REGARDS TO LATIN AMERICA. CUBA, ON THE OTHER HAND WITH ITS ECONOMIC WOES, AGING LEADERSHIP, AND OVERALL LOSS OF MORALE SEEMS DESTINED TO SEE ITS ROLE AND INFLUENCE IN LATIN AMERICA WANE.
This article essentially posits that Türkiye took advantage of the deepening competition between global powers under the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to part ways with its traditional foreign policy tradition and pursue a more independent approach. That the country expanded its economic and military capacity significantly during the relevant period to support a balanced policy between the West, Russia, and China is another major argument. To put those claims to the test, this article primarily analyzes the expansion of Türkiye's economic and military capacity and proceeds to focus on its policy toward the deepening rivalry between the West and Russia (due to the Ukraine war) and how it responded to the "rise of Asia." Last but not least, this piece analyzes Türkiye's pursuit of a more independent foreign policy, how the country clashed with the U.S., the European Union, and Russia as well as their allies on the ground, and how Ankara used its policy of balance to keep a lid on those tensions.
