Suchergebnisse

United States of America (U.S.) is still undoubtedly the most powerful state in the world therefore diverse analysis of its foreign policy is very important. There is no doubt that U.S. tries to secure its current position using various foreign policy instruments. What can be called U.S. Grand Strategy depends on many external and internal factors and foreign policy visions of two main political parties of U.S. are not at last place. Political parties can possibly be important object of foreign policy analysis in case when state's democratic political system is fully functioning and state has many competing visions of its role in international arena. These features are typical of U.S. political system therefore analysis of foreign policy visions of state's two main political parties is very relevant. The main object of this research is foreign policy views of the Republican Party of United States. The main goal of this research is to analyse change of foreign policy views of the Republican Party in the period 2000 - 2013. U.S. political system is characterized by strong presidential institution that has authority to lead state's foreign policy. However U.S. Congress also has various political instruments that can be used to support or restrict initiatives of U.S. President. President is also the leading voice and leader of his political party and represents consensus of party's ideology. This research concludes that U.S. political parties are broad coalitions of various social, interest groups. Due to this feature, distinct caucuses exist inside political parties. They can support totally different policy options. Consensus that can help sustain party's discipline is reached only in the process of permanent negotiations among these caucuses. Analysed period is important because it signifies shift of U.S. foreign policy priorities and also shift of dominant foreign policy views of the Republican Party. Changes of dominant foreign policy views in this period demonstrated that different foreign policy visions had always existed among conservative politicians, experts, think tanks and other institutions. Predominance of particular values is best highlighted by presidential leadership and his foreign policy doctrine. This research is divided into three main parts. This research uses explanatory case study method that is based on content analysis of political addresses, speeches, documents and secondary sources.

Smart power is a completely new phenomenon in international relations. It is defined as a smart combination of hard and soft powers"tools, which leads to effective foreign policy. Smart power is closely related with the case of the United States, in which even the highest officials in their rhetorics use the term of smart power. According to officials, smart power is an objective in foreign policy. Therefore there is a need to research if the USA uses smart power in its foreign policy towards China after 2009. The subject of this study is the use of smart power in foreign policy of the United States towards China since 2009. The aim of this study is to research if the U.S. uses the smart power as a tool of foreign policy in relations with China after the year 2009. To achieve this aim the following goals are settled: to present a theory of international relations realism, and its main ideas and types, distinguishing neoclassical realism; to discuss the term of power in international relations by distinguishing soft and hard power forms, and to present the concept of smart power by highlighting its origins, definition, application and tools; to perform an analyses of official U. S. rhetorics towards China after year 2009 by analyzing National security strategy and the speeches of the highest officials, and by evaluating the smart power evidence in those rhetorics; to analyze the smart power in U.S. foreign policy towards China after 2009 by using a structured interview method with international relations" experts. The defendant statement/hypothesis of this paper: the United States uses smart power as a tool of foreign policy towards China after 2009. Smart power is based on the principle when in a given situation the appropriate tool or combination of tools is selected in order to reach successful and effective foreign policy. While the smart power is neither hard nor soft power, it is often described as the method of power application, but not as a new form of power. The tools of smart power include both hard power and soft power tools, between which there are diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural instruments. The results of official U.S. rhetorics analyses suggest that smart power is declared as a foreign policy of U.S. towards China tool after 2009. Both the National Security Strategy and the official rhetoric of the highest officials suggest that the United States seeks to strengthen soft power tools, which became the priority, together with well-developed hard power. However, according to experts on international relations, the use of smart power in U.S. relations with China after 2009 is unimportant part of foreign policy. Smart power is an appropriate term to describe U.S foreign policy towards China after 2009, but it is not relevant during the process of policy formation.

In present article internal factors influencing Lithuanian foreign policy iden- tity are analysed: the image of Russia and the United States in the context of Lithuanian foreign policy identity, constructed by two important Lithuanian institutions (President and mass media of Lithuania) is researched. The arti- cle aims to compare Russia's and the U.S. image, constructed on two different levels: in the official rhetorics of Lithuanian president and in Lithuanian mass media. The comparison is made on the basis of following criteria: perception of Russia and the U.S. as "Other" of Lithuanian foreign policy identity; per- ception of mutual interests, perception of interests that differ.

In present article internal factors influencing Lithuanian foreign policy iden- tity are analysed: the image of Russia and the United States in the context of Lithuanian foreign policy identity, constructed by two important Lithuanian institutions (President and mass media of Lithuania) is researched. The arti- cle aims to compare Russia's and the U.S. image, constructed on two different levels: in the official rhetorics of Lithuanian president and in Lithuanian mass media. The comparison is made on the basis of following criteria: perception of Russia and the U.S. as "Other" of Lithuanian foreign policy identity; per- ception of mutual interests, perception of interests that differ.

In present article internal factors influencing Lithuanian foreign policy iden- tity are analysed: the image of Russia and the United States in the context of Lithuanian foreign policy identity, constructed by two important Lithuanian institutions (President and mass media of Lithuania) is researched. The arti- cle aims to compare Russia's and the U.S. image, constructed on two different levels: in the official rhetorics of Lithuanian president and in Lithuanian mass media. The comparison is made on the basis of following criteria: perception of Russia and the U.S. as "Other" of Lithuanian foreign policy identity; per- ception of mutual interests, perception of interests that differ.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.

The article ends with the conclusion that the foundation of the Lithuanian foreign policy must be its Western, not Eastern policy.

The article ends with the conclusion that the foundation of the Lithuanian foreign policy must be its Western, not Eastern policy.

The article ends with the conclusion that the foundation of the Lithuanian foreign policy must be its Western, not Eastern policy.