Suchergebnisse

Multilateralism has been low on the American foreign policy agenda during the Bush-administration, but many Europeans seem to think that this will change after the upcoming elections. This might be right, but the changes will not reflect European desires. This article starts out by debunking some prevalent European myths about US politics. This is followed by a discussion of the central aspects of American foreign policy thought, & how the presidential candidates reappraise historical themes. In the last part of the article, American neo-sovereignty is contrasted with European post-sovereignty & the conclusion spells out some of the dilemmas facing them both. Figures, References. Adapted from the source document.

This article summarizes Barack Obama's foreign policy during his short political career and labels his foreign policy as a mix of expansionism, realism, and institutionalism. A brief biography of Barack Obama is included to address Obama's views of the global community and history. Obama's views on Iraq, the war against terrorism, Iran, the UN, NATO, nuclear weapons, and climate change are examined. It is argued that Obama will be limited by circumstances in his ability to conduct foreign policy according to his convictions. Four examples are provided to illustrate actions desired by Obama but limited by circumstance, including a reform of the UN security council, nuclear disarmament, ratification of the US agreement with the International Court of Justice, and prevention of humanitarian disasters. It is suggested that Obama may prove to have individual strengths, including extraordinary powers of persuasion and inspiration, to overcome limitations and make a mark on history. The author speculates whether Obama's overall foreign policy objective will be peace or moral perfection. References. E. Sundby

Introduction to a series of articles on the topic of empires. The analytical goal of the series is to contribute historical facts, concepts, and theories to the discussion of imperial tendencies in present time. The political goal of the series is to introduce historical documentation that certain political entities previously labeled "states" might be better understood in the context of the conceptualization of empires. The article argues the return of imperialistic relationships in global politics, in particular the imperial role of present-day USA and Russia. The terms of state and empire are defined as used in the series of articles. Nexon and Wright's binding strategies and pivoting strategies for within-segment relationships are outlined. The article deals with the analytical problem of empires rising within a system that uses states and state logic as the analytical unit of measure. The articles in the series will focus on European and transatlantic empires and will account for the rise and fall of each empire. References. E. Sundby

What can account for the distinctive American style of political discourse, the independent course of US foreign policy, & the stubbornly enduring popularity of George W. Bush? The article argues that both rest on the deep structure of American thought that is on the one hand highly dualistic & on the other obsessed with the notion of purity. These produce a worldview in which the "Good" is wholly, indivisibly good, the "Bad" is wholly, indivisibly evil & "Good" is at eternal risk of corruption. This mental framework is first illustrated by means of two popular films, the 1989 Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure & the 1964 Dr. Strangelove. Finally, the author draws on the work of anthropologist Mary Douglas to analyze the consequences of this way of thinking for US foreign policy, & argues that such a dichotomous worldview faces constant challenge from the existence of phenomena that do not easily fit it. Much of US foreign policy can accordingly be understood as varying strategies to protect American purity & to resolve ambiguous phenomena that threaten the prevailing American moral code. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on books by (1) Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence. American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (New York: Routledge, 2002); (2) Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny. American Expansion and the Empire of Right (New York: Hill & Wang, 1995); & (3) Warren Zimmermann, First Great Triumph. How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2002). 20 References.

The author examines the power of superdelegates to exert disproportionate influence on the selection of the Democratic nominee for president. It is asserted that superdelegates consist dominantly of the party elite or party machine and are primarily white males, which it is further argued goes to the heart of the elitist concept of American exceptionalism. The history of American exceptionalism is examined. The introduction of superdelegates into the Democratic Party nomination process and front-loading of state elections to influence the nomination process are discussed as examples of exceptionalist politics. Campaign financing and spending is discussed, including the issue of campaign finance reform. One perspective presented on superdelegates is that they are intended to balance out the liberal tendencies of the average democrat voter in the primary election to promote the nomination of a moderate candidate. References. E. Sundby

The ramifications for Norwegian foreign policy, as a non-member of the European Union, are radically changed since the Cold War. The world has changed from a bipolar order with the US as a conserving superpower, to a unipolar world with the US as a radical superpower. 11 September 2001, & the following war on terrorism, has been a catalyst in this respect. As a result the US is today relating to international institutions as far as they are instrumental in the enhancement of American values & interests. The alliance between the US & Norway today lacks a common denominator. The threat from the east is gone. Still, Norwegian foreign policy & alliance orientation is very much the same as before. Why? Is it because reorientation for foreign policy comes harder in Norway than elsewhere? Historically, foreign policy in Norway has been more a question of administration than one of policy making. Furthermore, broad political consensus on foreign policy is a main political objective in itself. This has left little room for public & political discourse on foreign policy. The benefit is stability. The cost is reduced ability to adapt to radical international changes. A third factor is the ever-lasting question of Norwegian EU membership, which has made interest-based foreign policy more difficult. Norway outside the power blocs of international politics must balance on the interests of other states. Therefore, a clear understanding of Norwegian interests in 2005 -- outside the EU & dc-linked from the reflexes of the Cold War -- is needed. 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents the opinion that American exceptionalism has returned post 9/11. It is argued that Ronald Reagan's international relations during the cold war displayed the attitude that power is more important than intellectual, factual, historical, ideological, or moral obligations. The uses of power employed by Americans in international conflicts are compared to the uses of power employed by empires of the past. A historical exploration is included of the development of exceptionalist attitudes from the founding of the US in the 1700's, throughout the continual expansions of the 1800's and into the industrial and military power of the 1900's. It is further argued that American traditions during the early 1900's border on messianism, where the American people are the chosen people, and that Reaganism was a natural extension of these traditions, whereas post Reagan there was no need for American messianism or exceptionalism, and thus American Presidents sought a new world order where the US would participate in integrated global economics and politics in cooperation with other nations. George W. Bush's politics post 9/11 with its war on terror marked the return of American exceptionalism. E. Sundby

This article summarizes and draws conclusions from a series of articles on the topic of empires. The article emphasizes the need to understand the history of empires to fully understand the complexity of the concept and to utilize the framework of imperial theories to analyze present day international relations. Four elements of empires are emphasized and reviewed. The four elements of empires are applied to the argument of imperial tendencies in America and the European Union. The main conclusion is that various empires throughout history have differed in areas of government, legitimacy, assimilation and integration, and duration, but that they also have certain fundamental similarities that can be applied to the analysis of imperial tendencies in current international relations. References. E. Sundby