In the post-cold era, the economic and military power of the People's Republic of China is constantly growing. As a result, the rebirth of the idea of the protectionist economic policy, which has always been present in the American public debate, took place in the U.S. This idea is evidently reflected in the foreign policy of the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump. This article includes the analysis of the contemporary economic protectionism of the United States from the perspective of the offensive realism theory created by John Mearsheimer. The theory is based on three fundamental assumptions: the structure of the international system is anarchic, the primary goal of a state is to survive, for that reason states seek maximalization of their power. ; W epoce pozimnowojennej ma miejsce stały wzrost potęgi ekonomicznej oraz militarnej Chińskiej Republiki Ludowej. Owa tendencja spowodowała odrodzenie idei protekcjonizmu gospodarczego w Stanach Zjednoczonych, która była wcześniej obecna w amerykańskiej debacie publicznej. Owa idea wyraźnie się przejawia w polityce obecnego Prezydenta USA Donalda Trumpa. Artykuł zawiera analizę współczesnego zjawiska protekcjonizmu gospodarczego USA z perspektywy teorii realizmu ofensywnego stworzonej przez Johna Mearsheimera, której podstawowymi założeniami są przekonanie o anarchicznej strukturze systemu międzynarodowego oraz o przetrwaniu jako naczelnym celu państwa, które w związku z tym dąży do maksymalizacji własnej potęgi.
The aim of the article is to present and evaluate the involvement of the United States of America in resolving the 2011 Libya crisis. This problem is considered taking into account bilateral and multilateral circumstances. The individual parts of the article discuss issues such as relations between the United States of America and Libya before the crisis, as well as US actions during the crisis and the reasons for carrying them out. This concerns, inter alia, Washington's political activity in the UN Security Council and the contribution of the US Armed Forces to the military operation in Libya. The evolution of the United States position on the use of the military factor to change the political regime of Libya is also shown. The research problem is included in the questions, what motivated Washington's actions towards Libya and whether the chosen policy was justified? The main thesis of the article is that the basic reason for the involvement of the United States of America in the crisis in Libya were the premises of a humanitarian nature, but the US interests were also important. Unfortunately, the military action did not lead to the end of the internal conflict in this country. The approach of the United States of America to the crisis in Libya was an important element for the formulation of the doctrine of President Barack Obama. There can be observed the elements that match both the liberal and realistic concept of international relations. In the article, the text source analysis method was used. ; Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie i ocena zaangażowania Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki w rozwiązanie kryzysu w Libii z 2011 roku. Problem ten rozpatrywano z uwzględnieniem okoliczności dwustronnych i wielostronnych. W poszczególnych częściach artykułu omówiono zagadnienia, takie jak relacje Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki i Libii przed kryzysem oraz działania USA w trakcie kryzysu i motywy je warunkujące. Dotyczy to między innymi aktywności politycznej Waszyngtonu na forum Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ oraz wkładu Sił Zbrojnych USA w operację zbrojną w Libii. Ukazano również ewolucję stanowiska Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki w kwestii wykorzystania czynnika militarnego do zmiany reżimu politycznego Libii. Problem badawczy zawiera się w pytaniach, czym motywowane były działania Waszyngtonu wobec Libii oraz czy obrana polityka była zasadna? Główną tezą artykułu jest stwierdzenie, że podstawowym powodem zaangażowania się Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki w kryzys w Libii były przesłanki natury humanitarnej, jednak liczyły się także interesy USA. Niestety akcja zbrojna nie doprowadziła do zakończenia konfliktu wewnętrznego w tym państwie. Podejście Waszyngtonu do kryzysu w Libii było ważnym elementem wpływającym na formułowanie doktryny prezydenta Baracka Obamy. Możemy w nim dostrzec cechy wpisujące się zarówno w liberalną, jak i realistyczną koncepcję stosunków międzynarodowych. W artykule wykorzystano metodę analizy źródeł tekstowych.
The chief purpose of BBC World Service, Radio France Internationale, and Voice of America in the Context of International Communication: From Propaganda to Public Diplomacy is to analyse the role radio stations fulfil for international communication nowadays in the light of the roles they served in the past (that is, the times when radio dominated). During the interwar period and right before World War II, new radio stations came to being that aimed at broadcasting content targeted at the listeners abroad. Initially, these radio stations were transmitting mostly official messages or functioning as private point-to-point communication; in both cases, they functioned similarly to telegraphs (assuming one addresser and one addressee). Along with not only the development of the transmitting and receiving devices but also the widening of our knowledge on radio waves, radio turned into a mass medium, thanks to various "freaks," including investors and other radio lovers. Having access to the network of correspondents and a powerful radio signal, radio stations back then were able to provide live coverage of the events that interested listeners all around the globe. The capacities of radio were significant during World War II as well; precisely, it ceased to serve communication purposes exclusively, and was included into military arsenal (used not only in operations and diversion actions, but also for jamming and scouting). This military conflict showed that the possibility of reaching listeners abroad – that is, the citizens of adversary, allied, and neutral states – had been of enormous importance, whereas the ability of shaping the opinions of foreign citizens had become a crucial part of contemporary warfare. The relevance of radio for international communication was indisputable also during the Cold War. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, BBC World Service, Radio France Internationale, Deutsche Welle, Radio Madrid, Radio Moskwa, and Radio China International were fundamentally engaged in both ideological war and public diplomacy. Simultaneously, various international processes changed the position radio occupied among other media; the "Golden Age of Radio" reached a significant decline in the 1950s, when the dominance of radio gave way to the advent of television, whereas from late 1990s on the situation of all media was revolutionised by the birth of the Internet. As a result, digitalisation, convergence, shifts in reception and use of media – not to mention other broader phenomena, including the dominance of audiovisual culture – affected not only listeners and their preferences (inclining to fragmented radio programmes), but also ratings and marketability of radio stations. Finally, since political communication has privileged the audiovisual paradigm, and domestic policy has gradually become a media issue, radio has withdrawn in this area as well, giving primacy to television and new media. Because of the aforementioned factors and shifts, it becomes vital to carefully reconsider the contemporary and international status of radio. After all, one might be tempted to think that radio is no longer in its heyday, whereas both governments and individual listeners do not deem it as a genuine informative medium or a means capable of reaching the foreign public opinion. This book, therefore, explores how Radio France Internationale, Voice of America, and BBC World Service changed diachronically in reference to other radio stations alike, points to rules they follow and formats their programmes take, and analyses their recent activity in international communication between 2014 and 2018. Chapter 1 introduces theoretical vocabulary international communication relies on, and juxtaposes its various definitions with related cultural phenomena, including transcultural communication, political communication, propaganda, public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, media diplomacy, and soft power. Aside from analysing these concepts, this chapter also proposes an innovative definition of international communication and its graphic model. Chapter 2 is diachronic, and it focuses on the discovery of radio waves and the invention of radio read from the technical perspective, which determines the position of radio for international communication. Moreover, the early forms of radio are recalled with regard to their significance for foreign communication. Finally, the development of radio and broadcasting in France, United Kingdom, and the USA is presented with an emphasis put on the differences between their broadcasting models. Chapter 3 is devoted to the development of international broadcasting, dividing it into three stages: 1) the early 20th century (until the 1930s), when radio waves were being tested, the first experimental stations came to being, and first international radio stations were founded, including those in Nauen and Zessen (Germany), Sainte-Assise and Le Post Colonial (France), Eindhoven and Heuzen (Netherlands), Chelmsford (United Kingdom); 2) the World War II period, in which the uses of radio for international military communication are analysed in reference to propaganda radio stations (Radio Berlin, Radio Hamburg, Radio Stuttgart, Radio Tokio) and its prominent figures (William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw"), Paul Ferdonnet ("the Stuttgart Traitor"), Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally"), Ive Togure ("Tokyo Rose")), British pirate radio stations functioning in response to the Axis propaganda (for instance, Gustav Siegfried Eins), the radio stations of French Resistance with a special emphasis put on Radio Brazzaville, that is, Charles de Gaulle's chief means of international communication, and, finally, Voice of America serving for public diplomacy purposes; 3) the Cold War period, in which the objectives, assumptions, and strategies of international broadcasting posed by France, United Kingdom, the United States of America between 1945 and late 1980s are examined. The last chapter is entirely dedicated to BBC World Service, Radio France Internationale and Voice of America nowadays, paying attention to their regulations, structures, and broadcasting services. These radio stations are understood as means used for public diplomacy of their countries, and their institutional and formal connections to government institutions are discussed. Consequently, this comparative chapter refers to the legal contexts, supported by acts and regulations of a given country, presents the principles and levels of funding, reconstructs the institutional positions of radio among other media, and characterises broadcasting in terms of services, directions, and programmes. The analysis of contemporary strategies and activities of the discussed radio stations makes it possible to claim that the use of radio for international communication has not lost its relevance, and currently is supported with television and the Internet, that is, the media that were invented later in the course of historical progress. Radio stations, therefore, are not held in media bubbles; rather, they are still significant means of foreign communication because of their specificities. Furthermore, radio communication complies with strategic foreign policies, which affects various parts of the world where levels of technological development diverge whilst the access to television or the Internet connection is not available. In the countries stricken with military conflicts or poverty, radio is still the predominant means of communication that serves numerous purposes; not only is it a source of information on military operations, epidemiological situations, climate and natural disasters, but also it educates its listeners on civil and human rights, especially women's rights. Finally, Voice of America, BBC World Service, and Radio France Internationale support policies against extremism and propaganda (for instance, fake news). The services of the discussed radio stations are related to the policies the United States of America, United Kingdom, and France put forward against ISIL and international terrorism, but also to those actions that support democratic changes in the countries affected by war and political unrest.
The article presents relations between Georgia and the United States of America in the years 1992–2009. Time frames were not selected randomly and represent the establishment of bilateral relations between states on 23 April 1992 and the signing of strategic partnership agreement on 9 January 2009. United States interest in Georgia was due to a policy of diversification of energy resources of the Caspian Sea within the boundaries of Azerbaijan. In diversification plans, Georgia was to be a transit area for oil and gas to Western Europe. Position of Georgia was reinforced by the intention to avoid the territory of the Russian Federation, and the Armenian direction was impossible because the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. The United States supported Georgia's aspirations for membership in NATO and the European Union allocating significant financial assistance and support for administrative reform, economic and government. ; W artykule przedstawiono relacje Gruzji ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi Ameryki w latach 1992–2009. Ramy czasowe nie zostały wybrane przypadkowo i odnoszą się do daty nawiązania relacji bilateralnych między państwami 23 kwietnia 1992 roku oraz podpisania umowy o partnerstwie strategicznym 9 stycznia 2009 roku. Zainteresowanie Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki Gruzją wynikało z polityki dywersyfikacji zasobów energetycznych Morza Kaspijskiego znajdujących się w granicach Azerbejdżanu. Gruzja w planach dywersyfikacyjnych miała stanowić terytorium tranzytowe dla ropy naftowej i gazu ziemnego do Europy Zachodniej. Jej pozycję wzmacniała chęć ominięcia terytorium Federacji Rosyjskiej, a kierunek ormiański był niemożliwy z powodu azersko-ormiańskiego konfliktu o Górski Karabach. Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki wspierały dążenia Gruzji do członkostwa w Sojuszu Północnoatlantyckim oraz Unii Europejskiej, przeznaczając znaczną pomoc finansową oraz wspierając ją w reformach administracyjnych, gospodarczych oraz samorządowych.
Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Na przestrzeni lat politycy Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki i Federacji Rosyjskiej prezentowali odmienne opinie dotyczące wzrostu potencjału militarnego Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Dla decydentów Federacji Rosyjskiej działania Polski w zakresie bezpieczeństwa stanowiły realne zagrożenia dla żywotnych interesów mocarstwa i oddziaływania na politykę państw w Europie Środkowej i Wschodniej. W Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki postrzeganie polityki bezpieczeństwa, prowadzonej przez polskich polityków, wynikało z przyjętej koncepcji polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa przez amerykańskich polityków. Kandydaci na stanowisko prezydenta Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki przedstawiali własne poglądy dotyczące polityki zapewniającej globalne bezpieczeństwo. Donald Trump negował rolę Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki, jako protektora państw Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej w zakresie bezpieczeństwa, równocześnie dostrzegając korzyści wynikające z partnerstwa z Federacją Rosyjską. Kontrkandydatka Hillary Clinton zapowiedziała kontynuację dotychczasowej polityki państwa oraz stworzenie koalicji przeciwko Państwu Islamskiemu. Pomimo różnic w odbiorze pozycji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w zakresie bezpieczeństwa, Wojska Specjalne rozwijają swoje zdolności do prowadzenia operacji obronnych państwa oraz uczestniczenia w międzynarodowych działaniach, np. dowodzenie siłami specjalnymi podczas dyżuru w ramach Sił Odpowiedzi NATO. ; Over the years, the politicians of the United States of America and the Russian Federation presented different opinions on the growth of the military potential of the Republic of Poland. For the decision makers of the Russian Federation the Polish activities regarding security constituted a real threat to the vital interests of the superpower and impact on the policies of countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In the United States the perception of security policy pursued by Polish politicians resulted from the concept of the foreign policy and security adopted by American politicians. Candidates for the position of the President of the United States of America presented their own views on the policy ensuring global security. Donald Trump denied the role of the United States of America as a protector of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in terms of security, while recognizing the benefits of the partnership with the Russian Federation. Opponent Hillary Clinton announced the continuation of the current state policy and the creation of a coalition against the Islamic State. Despite the differences in the perception of the status of the Polish Republic regarding security in the international arena, Polish Special Forces are developing the capacities to conduct defence operations and participate in international activities e.g. command special forces in the framework of the NATO Response Force.
1970s military dictatorship in Latin America was followed by a democratization process in the 1980s, at a point when military powers had devastated the economy & more than doubled foreign debt. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, the region finds itself in a period marked by governments that, perhaps more than ever before, are characterized by their reaction to the neo-liberal policies of the 1990s. Of particular concern in this respect is the changing relationship between the region & the United States, which in turn opens opportunity for the involvement of other international actors in the sphere. This brings about a high degree of uncertainty both for Latin America itself as well as for the international community. Some of the many cases of Latin American economies & politics in crisis are described here in detail. C Brunski
A historical discussion on the foreign policy relationship between Norway and the United States and its future perspectives. The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), founded in 1959, can legitimately be called a child of the Cold War. During the 1950's Norway's main focus was to stand between the two super powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. Already in the 1960's this role began to diminish due to improvements in weapon technology and became even smaller in the 1970's when Norwegian left leaning parties started to openly oppose the United States. In the 1980's Norway tried its best to become visible for Washington, a project that somewhat failed due to Ronald Regan's focus on the internal economy and rolling back communism abroad. Overall the relationship to the United States has almost exclusively been based on foreign policy even if cultural ties have made Norway the most Americanized country in Europe. Adapted from the source document.
The article is based on an analysis of certain aspects of how the public opinion of selected nations in years 2001–2016 perceived the American foreign policy and the images of two Presidents of the United States (George W. Bush, Barack Obama). In order to achieve these research goals some polling indicators were constructed. They are linked with empirical assessments related to the foreign policy of the U.S. and the political activity of two Presidents of the United States of America which are constructed by nations in three segments of the world system. Results of the analysis confirmed the research hypotheses. The position of a given nation in the structure of the world system influenced the dynamics of perception and the directions of empirical assessments (positive/negative) of that nation's public opinion about the USA.
Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Artykuł przedstawia międzynarodową rolę Stanów Zjednoczonych w ciągu ostatnich trzydziestu lat. Bardziej precyzyjnie możemy mówić o czterech następujących po sobie rolach Ameryki w tym czasie. Najpierw jako lidera wolnego świata i rywala Związku Sowieckiego w końcówce zimnej wojny (G.H. Bush). Po drugie, jako globalnego przywódcy w latach 90., w czasie uważanym za "jednobiegunowy moment" (B. Clinton). Po trzecie, upadłego hegemona po fiasku narzucenia światu globalnej hegemonii w czasie podwójnej kadencji G.W. Busha. Wreszcie, powściągliwego przywództwa USA sprawowanego przez B. Obamę. Trzydziestoletnie globalne przywództwo jak się zdaje wyczerpało moralnie Amerykę, co pokazała elekcja D. Trumpa. Ten wybór stawia pod znakiem zapytania przyszłość USA jako globalnego przywódcy. ; Article presents an international role of the United States during the last thirty years. More specifi - cally, we can talk about four subsequent roles of America in this period. First, as a leader of free world and a rival of the Soviet Union at the end of Cold War (G.H. Bush). Second, as a global leader in the 90s: time of the "unipolar moment" (B. Clinton). Third, a failed hegemon after unsuccessful bid for hegemony during the double term of G.W. Bush. And fourth, restraint leadership of the US exercised by B. Obama. Thirty years of global leadership seems to have exhausted morally America as it has been shown by the election of D. Trump. This choice puts under question future of the U.S. as a global leader.
To play a key role in international arena, the European Union promotes close ties with states of different regions. The subject of the EU interests is Latin America. The strategic partnership between the two is realized in three areas, defined during EU-Latin America summits, ministerial and experts meetings. The first area is economic and technological cooperation. The second field of cooperation is devoted to education, science and culture, and the third – to social cohesion and development assistance. The responsibility for implementation of the partnership provisions lays with the European Investment Bank, working groups and with cooperation programmes such as AL-INVEST, ALFA, ALBAN/Erasmus Mundus, @LIS, EUrocLIMA, URB-AL. ; Dążąc do odgrywania kluczowej roli na arenie międzynarodowej, Unia Europejska zacieśnia więzi z państwami różnych regionów. Przedmiotem zainteresowania jest również Ameryka Łacińska, z którą ustanowiono strategiczne partnerstwo. Jest ono realizowane w trzech obszarach, wyznaczonych podczas szczytów Unia Europejska – Ameryka Łacińska, spotkań ministerialnych i spotkań grup eksperckich. Pierwszym jest współpraca gospodarcza i technologiczna. Drugi obszar dotyczy edukacji, nauki i kultury, natomiast trzeci poświęcony jest pomocy rozwojowej. Implementacja założeń partnerstwa odbywa się za pośrednictwem Europejskiego Banku Inwestycyjnego, grup roboczych oraz programów tematycznych, takich jak AL-INVEST, ALFA, ALBAN/Erasmus Mundus, @LIS, EUrocLIMA, URB-AL.
