Suchergebnisse

Adapted from the source document.

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

Adapted from the source document.

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.

This master's thesis – "The Construction of USA Roles in National Security Strategies: Period After the Cold War" – questions what kinds of roles do the USA have in the world. The object of this work is the National Security Strategies of the United States of America after the Cold War. The main purpose of this thesis is to analyze the roles' construction of the US, which are defined in the National Security Strategies. The main tasks were to analyze the role theory of international relations in the context of the US. Another task – to examine roles of the US in the National Security Strategies published after the Cold War. The main analysis was based on the construction of the roles: which of them repeats through the Strategies and how do they change during the years. The main outcome of this work is the definitions of the main roles of the US in the world. This thesis has three main chapters: at first, it gives structured analysis of role theory, then it explains the connection between role and identity through national interests and then it gives an analysis of National Security Strategies. Foreign policy of a state defines norms, which depends on national identity and the global context – neighboring countries, regions, subregions and global processes. Foreign policy is one of the main practices to construct and reveal the role of a state. The main document to define the US' vision of the state and connections with the world is National Security Strategy. This document highlights foreign policy's guidelines, main interests of a state, liabilities and the capacity of the security of the state. The exceptionalism of the US is what theorists define while talking about power distribution and roles in the world. The political decisions of the US have influence on the state itself and, more importantly, the remaining world. The national interests and actions form the roles of the US. The state links it with its promises and actions. That is why in the NSS you can find more about "outside" world, interactions between states and a vision of a global world. The analysis of the NSS reveals five roles of the US in the world: world leader, an example to the world, world policeman, world rescuer and mediator. They were the most repeated roles of the US. It is clear, that all roles of the US highlight its pursuit of authority and being the center of the world. As role theory states, role is not just how an "ego" sees itself, but also the expectations of the "alter" to an "ego". Being a mediator, the US has not only have the capacity of being one, but also other countries expect her to be one. Without doubt the salient role of the US is the one as a world leader. It is seen from the military capacity and, most of all, from the fact that interests of the US are equated to the interests of the whole world. Keeping this role the US can reach its national interests' implementation while having influence on other sates. As an "example to the world", the US creates more roles to itself. This way the US becomes not only it, but also the one that other countries tend to seek for help or authority. As role theory states, "the other" assigns its expectations to the US, this is how the role forms. This analysis revealed that although the US defines itself as a global leader and world policeman, it acts according to the interests of itself. American citizens can be safe in the world, that is guarded. Furthermore, as a mediator, the US gets even more benefits. This thesis adds to analysis of the US roles a broader view, because it takes a long period of time – almost 40 years. It fills the hole in researchers of the US roles with original names of the roles. The further works could be based on a deeper analysis of roles of the US – how do they apply to the real actions of the state. In other words, does the theory meet the practice.

This master's thesis – "The Construction of USA Roles in National Security Strategies: Period After the Cold War" – questions what kinds of roles do the USA have in the world. The object of this work is the National Security Strategies of the United States of America after the Cold War. The main purpose of this thesis is to analyze the roles' construction of the US, which are defined in the National Security Strategies. The main tasks were to analyze the role theory of international relations in the context of the US. Another task – to examine roles of the US in the National Security Strategies published after the Cold War. The main analysis was based on the construction of the roles: which of them repeats through the Strategies and how do they change during the years. The main outcome of this work is the definitions of the main roles of the US in the world. This thesis has three main chapters: at first, it gives structured analysis of role theory, then it explains the connection between role and identity through national interests and then it gives an analysis of National Security Strategies. Foreign policy of a state defines norms, which depends on national identity and the global context – neighboring countries, regions, subregions and global processes. Foreign policy is one of the main practices to construct and reveal the role of a state. The main document to define the US' vision of the state and connections with the world is National Security Strategy. This document highlights foreign policy's guidelines, main interests of a state, liabilities and the capacity of the security of the state. The exceptionalism of the US is what theorists define while talking about power distribution and roles in the world. The political decisions of the US have influence on the state itself and, more importantly, the remaining world. The national interests and actions form the roles of the US. The state links it with its promises and actions. That is why in the NSS you can find more about "outside" world, interactions between states and a vision of a global world. The analysis of the NSS reveals five roles of the US in the world: world leader, an example to the world, world policeman, world rescuer and mediator. They were the most repeated roles of the US. It is clear, that all roles of the US highlight its pursuit of authority and being the center of the world. As role theory states, role is not just how an "ego" sees itself, but also the expectations of the "alter" to an "ego". Being a mediator, the US has not only have the capacity of being one, but also other countries expect her to be one. Without doubt the salient role of the US is the one as a world leader. It is seen from the military capacity and, most of all, from the fact that interests of the US are equated to the interests of the whole world. Keeping this role the US can reach its national interests' implementation while having influence on other sates. As an "example to the world", the US creates more roles to itself. This way the US becomes not only it, but also the one that other countries tend to seek for help or authority. As role theory states, "the other" assigns its expectations to the US, this is how the role forms. This analysis revealed that although the US defines itself as a global leader and world policeman, it acts according to the interests of itself. American citizens can be safe in the world, that is guarded. Furthermore, as a mediator, the US gets even more benefits. This thesis adds to analysis of the US roles a broader view, because it takes a long period of time – almost 40 years. It fills the hole in researchers of the US roles with original names of the roles. The further works could be based on a deeper analysis of roles of the US – how do they apply to the real actions of the state. In other words, does the theory meet the practice.

This master's thesis – "The Construction of USA Roles in National Security Strategies: Period After the Cold War" – questions what kinds of roles do the USA have in the world. The object of this work is the National Security Strategies of the United States of America after the Cold War. The main purpose of this thesis is to analyze the roles' construction of the US, which are defined in the National Security Strategies. The main tasks were to analyze the role theory of international relations in the context of the US. Another task – to examine roles of the US in the National Security Strategies published after the Cold War. The main analysis was based on the construction of the roles: which of them repeats through the Strategies and how do they change during the years. The main outcome of this work is the definitions of the main roles of the US in the world. This thesis has three main chapters: at first, it gives structured analysis of role theory, then it explains the connection between role and identity through national interests and then it gives an analysis of National Security Strategies. Foreign policy of a state defines norms, which depends on national identity and the global context – neighboring countries, regions, subregions and global processes. Foreign policy is one of the main practices to construct and reveal the role of a state. The main document to define the US' vision of the state and connections with the world is National Security Strategy. This document highlights foreign policy's guidelines, main interests of a state, liabilities and the capacity of the security of the state. The exceptionalism of the US is what theorists define while talking about power distribution and roles in the world. The political decisions of the US have influence on the state itself and, more importantly, the remaining world. The national interests and actions form the roles of the US. The state links it with its promises and actions. That is why in the NSS you can find more about "outside" world, interactions between states and a vision of a global world. The analysis of the NSS reveals five roles of the US in the world: world leader, an example to the world, world policeman, world rescuer and mediator. They were the most repeated roles of the US. It is clear, that all roles of the US highlight its pursuit of authority and being the center of the world. As role theory states, role is not just how an "ego" sees itself, but also the expectations of the "alter" to an "ego". Being a mediator, the US has not only have the capacity of being one, but also other countries expect her to be one. Without doubt the salient role of the US is the one as a world leader. It is seen from the military capacity and, most of all, from the fact that interests of the US are equated to the interests of the whole world. Keeping this role the US can reach its national interests' implementation while having influence on other sates. As an "example to the world", the US creates more roles to itself. This way the US becomes not only it, but also the one that other countries tend to seek for help or authority. As role theory states, "the other" assigns its expectations to the US, this is how the role forms. This analysis revealed that although the US defines itself as a global leader and world policeman, it acts according to the interests of itself. American citizens can be safe in the world, that is guarded. Furthermore, as a mediator, the US gets even more benefits. This thesis adds to analysis of the US roles a broader view, because it takes a long period of time – almost 40 years. It fills the hole in researchers of the US roles with original names of the roles. The further works could be based on a deeper analysis of roles of the US – how do they apply to the real actions of the state. In other words, does the theory meet the practice.