Suchergebnisse

Intro -- U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES -- U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 FOREIGN OREIGN AID REFORM , NATIONAL STRATEGY , AND THE QUADRENNIAL REVIEW -- SUMMARY -- INTRODUCTION -- INTEREST IN ELEVATING DIPLOMACY AND DEVELOPMENT -- Issues and Actions during the George W. Bush Administration -- Issues and Actions during the Obama Administration -- NATIONAL STRATEGY -- LEGISLATION ON FOREIGN AID REFORM -- THE QUADRENNIAL REVIEW -- Congressional Action -- Executive Branch Action -- QDDR Structure -- Timing of Report -- Initial Concerns -- THE PRESIDENTIAL STUDY DIRECTIVE ON U.S. GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY -- CONCLUSION -- End Notes -- Chapter 2 FOREIGN OREIGN AID : INTERNATIONAL DONOR COORDINATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE -- SUMMARY -- INTRODUCTION -- OVERVIEW OF OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE -- WHY COORDINATE? -- INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR DONOR COORDINATION -- Rome High Level Forum on Donor Harmonization -- Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness -- Accra Agenda for Action -- IMPLEMENTING DONOR COORDINATION -- Global Mechanisms -- Use of Multilateral Organizations -- Joint Assistance Strategies -- Data Sharing -- EXAMPLE: SECTOR BASED COORDINATION-HIV/AIDS -- U.S.-Specific Mechanisms for Donor Coordination -- USAID Guidance -- USAID Coordination Officers -- MCC and OGAC -- COORDINATION CHALLENGES -- Division of Labor -- Concerns about Direct Budget Support and Funding Pools -- Agency and Personnel Incentives -- Lack of Inter-agency Coordination -- Coordination Costs -- Conflicting Strategic Interests -- Working with Private and Emerging Donors -- APPENDIX. ODA DONORS AND PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS THAT PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES -- End Notes -- Chapter 3 AFRICA: U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ISSUES -- SUMMARY -- U.S. AID TO AFRICA: AN OVERVIEW -- BACKGROUND -- U.S. Assistance Programs

Regional Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy, Second Edition, seeks to serve as a supplement to comprehensive foreign policy textbooks by providing micro-level bilateral interactions among specific states-material that is often ignored or downplayed in more general treatments of the subject.

The United States government-backed by the overwhelming support of the American public-takes a hard line against international terrorism. The tenets of official U.S. counterterrorist policy are: make no concessions or deals with terrorists; bring them to justice for their crimes; isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism; and bolster the counterterrorist capabilities of countries willing to work with the United States. While these tenets are sound principles, their application, specifically overseas, raises difficult questions. Does the "no deal" policy actually deter terrorists acts? Are there cases where agreements might reduce terrorism, while advancing other U.S. interests? Do isolation and pressure really force offending states to alter their support for terrorists? What factors affect the willingness, not just the capability, of foreign governments to help the United States in counterterrorism? In this critical study, a career CIA officer provides a guide to constructing and executing counterterrorist policy, urging that it be formulated as an integral part of broader U.S. foreign policy. In the first four chapters, Paul R. Pillar identifies the necessary elements of counterterrorist policy, he examines why the United States is a prime terrorist target, and he reveals why the counterterrorist policies that seem strongest are not always the most effective. Chapter 5 examines the widely varying nature of terrorist groups and the policy tools most appropriately applied to them. Chapter 6 focuses on states that sponsor terrorism (including Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba), along with those that enable it to occur (particularly Greece and Pakistan). Pillar examines ways in which the American public's perspective toward terrorism can actually constrain counterterrorist policy, and he concludes that terrorism cannot be

Research in international relations has identified a variety of actors who appear to influence U.S. foreign policy, including experts and "epistemic communities," organized interests (especially business and labor), and ordinary citizens or "public opinion." This research, however, has often focused on a single factor at a time, rather than systematically testing the relative importance of alternative possible influences. Using extensive survey data gathered over three decades we conduct a comparative test, attempting to account for the expressed foreign policy preferences of policy makers by means of the preferences of the general public and those of several distinct sets of elites. The results of cross-sectional and time-lagged analyses suggest that U.S. foreign policy is most heavily and consistently influenced by internationally oriented business leaders, followed by experts (who, however, may themselves be influenced by business). Labor appears to have significant but smaller impacts. The general public seems to have considerably less effect, except under particular conditions. These results generally hold over several different analytical models (including two-observation time series) and different clusters of issues (economic, military, and diplomatic), with some variations across different institutional settings (the U.S. House, Senate, and executive branch).

In a major reinterpretation of American diplomatic history, Michael H. Hunt argues that there is an ideology that has shaped American foreign policy—an ideology based on a conception of national mission, on the racial classification of other peoples, and on hostility toward social revolutions—and he traces its rise and impact from the eighteenth century down to the present day. "Michael Hunt effectively analyzes the mental prisms through which perceptions of the American national interest are refracted. Policymakers will find his book provocative. All Americans who care about their country's place in the world will find it worth reading."—Rep. Stephen Solarz "Three 'core ideas' of American political culture, according to Mr. Hunt, have powerfully molded American diplomacy, and they form the heart of his analysis. These ideas concern the questions of revolution, race and, most interestingly, liberty…. On the subject of liberty… Mr. Hunt is supple and suggestive. … Mr. Hunt's examination of the conflation of liberty and greatness helps us understand the ideological genesis of the Reagan Doctrine, with is open-ended support for anti-Communist movements everywhere."—David M. Kennedy, New York Times Book Review "A lean, plain-spoken treatment of a grand subject…. A bold piece of criticism and advocacy…. The tight focus of the argument may insure its survival as one of the basic postwar critiques of U.S. policy."—John W. Dower, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Michael H. Hunt is professor of history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Located in the heart of Central Asia are five weak states: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Structural factors such as small populations and geographic remoteness, combined with a failure to provide ade- quate levels of "political goods," are the sources of their weakness.1 The govern- ments' failures are due in large part to the political and economic development paths they have followed since independence at the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. The governments in Central Asia are largely authoritarian and ruled by for- mer Communist Party officials.

This new edition of Michael H. Hunt's classic reinterpretation of American diplomatic history includes a preface that reflects on the personal experience and intellectual agenda behind the writing of the book, surveys the broad impact of the book's argument, and addresses the challenges to the thesis since the book's original publication. In the wake of 9/11 this interpretation is more pertinent than ever.Praise for the previous edition:"Clearly written and historically sound. . . . A subtle critique and analysis."-Gaddis Smith, Foreign Affairs"A lean, plain-spoken treatment of a grand subject. . . . A bold piece of criticism and advocacy. . . . The right focus of the argument may insure its survival as one of the basic postwar critiques of U.S. policy."-John W. Dower, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"A work of intellectual vigor and daring, impressive in its scholarship and imaginative in its use of material."-Ronald Steel, Reviews in American History"A masterpiece of historical compression."-Wilson Quarterly"A penetrating and provocative study. . . . A pleasure both to read and to contemplate."-John Martz, Journal of Politics