Suchergebnisse

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.

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

In the 1990s, American public diplomacy was built down & neglected following its merits during the Cold War. After September 11, (2001), this field has, however, had a renaissance. But at present, the Cold War situation is inverted. In the struggle against communism, the US typically faced hostile regimes with populations yearning for Western ideology & values. Today a heavy reliance on mechanisms of marketing seems to have deteriorated US public diplomacy, whereas the Arab world is far from fertile soil for US public diplomacy. America's current enemies tend to be sub-national actors with hostile perceptions of the US, & larger populations show strong anti-American sentiments. Most activities that are labeled public diplomacy also belong in the realm of propaganda, but so-called white propaganda -- ie, the sender is known. But can public diplomacy work unless the state it originates from combines it with a policy that is saleable to the target audience? 1 Figure, 51 References. Adapted from the source document.

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 seeks to show that when Germany surprised the world by signaling its disagreement with President Bush regarding the attack on Iraq, it could not be explained by Chancellor Schroder's election campaign, nor by the lack of rapport between the two leaders. At issue are differences regarding principles as well as interests in the wake of the revision of American security policy after September 11, 2001. After reunification, Germany felt freer to express its own interests regarding these & other issues such as closer European security cooperation that Washington now seems to see as a challenge to its own interests. The author concludes by suggesting that this development indicates that the disagreement between Berlin & Washington is not of a temporary nature as some would like to think. 17 References. Adapted from the source document.